Richard
I have always scanned at the highest resolution to keep, fiddle with
("improve") and for printing.
I use Photoshop or Graphic Converter (Mac only I believe) to reduce the
images in size, with resampling "Bicubic", to 600 or 700 pixels on its
longest dimension for the web (I don't bother with the "Save for the
Web" option).
Resolution does not matter if you are sizing in pixels (thanks to Tom
Scales for pointing that out about 3 years ago).
For printing images, I size the image in inches to just smaller than
the paper's size, reducing the resolution to a minimum of 300ppi,
sometimes leaving it at 600. I always have to reduce the ppi so as to
avoid trying to get more out of an image that was scanned in.
In the printer's sofware, I always use at least 720dpi (let's take that
as droplets of ink per inch to distinguish printing from scanning),
normally 1440 for assured quality (probably only in my head). I use
Colorsync for making the colour right.
To keep images with the smallest use of disk space I use compressed TIF
(LZW). I would use JPEG 2000, but Photoshop CS takes 3 years per image
file of 80Mb to get around to the save dialogue box for .jp2k.
I am sure that others have their own ways of working, but these modus
operandi work for me.
Chris
On 2 Sep 2004, at 13:34, Richard Lovison wrote:
> This is somewhat on topic as I'm scanning negatives taken with an OM4t
> and OM1. ;) I was wondering if anyone could recommend a book that
> addresses digital scanning techniques? I have a copy of "Scanning the
> Professional Way" by Sybil Ihrig & Emil Ihrig that I checked out from
> the Simon's Rock Library but it is somewhat dated. The Epson software
> that came with the 3170 looks fairly powerful though poorly documented,
> plus I'm a newbie at this. Trying to understand DPI, PPI and
> resolution when it relates to monitors, scanners and printers was mind
> numbing and left me in a stupor for a few days. I'm still walking into
> walls. :) I always thought it was best to scan at the highest
> resolution and then downsample if I wanted a smaller image, say 700x460
> or so for a web jpeg image. From what I read, it seems for better
> image quality, it would be best for me to scan at around 600 to produce
> that image.
>
> I tried Ed's Vuescan but at the moment I'm having problems getting it
> to recognize the scanner. Maybe this has something to do with the fact
> that my Windows boot option is 98 and not 98SE (I've been running Linux
> almost exclusively for the past 4 years). I should be getting my $20
> SE upgrade from Microsoft within the next few days and if that doesn't
> help, Ed will lend a hand when he gets back from his travels.
>
> Richard
<|_:-)_|>
C M I Barker
Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
+44 (0)7092 251126
ftog at threeshoes.co.uk
http://www.threeshoes.co.uk
http://homepage.mac.com/zuiko
... a nascent photo library.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|