|
thomaskeefer
Jun 5, 2003, 5:20 PM
Post #1 of 7
(1479 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2002
Posts: 186
|
What tricks are you all using to scan your photos.. are they all slide scans or ane any print scans?
I like prints that are matte with a white border but I am not sure that they scan all that well... the scans I get dont look like the pics posted here but I dont do anything to them. I am pretty sure I have a suitable scanner (HP)
thanks for any tips you have to offer!
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Jun 5, 2003, 5:30 PM
Post #2 of 7
(1479 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
The best way to scan an image that you want to display on the Web is via a slide/negative scanner. Jody Langford has some great shots that were scanned as prints, but they look noticeably better when he scanned them from slides, due to the greater shadow detail and intensity of the colors. It is not an issue of resolution, but of transmittance.
See this page for a (somewhat dated) crash course in scanning images for the Web. The bottom line is that a computer monitor does not have the fine detail of a photographic print, but what you lose in resolution you can regain in contrast, since the darkest black on a monitor is much darker (relative to the whitest white) than the darkest tone you can produce on a print. So you cut your losses and maximally exploit the strong points of a computer display, and you scan directly through the film you have shot, if you want the boldest colors and greatest impact on the Web.
|
|
|
|
|
extrememountaineer
Jun 5, 2003, 5:48 PM
Post #3 of 7
(1479 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2003
Posts: 377
|
Yeh, Tim ragged on me for months about my crappy scans and then I finally broke down and had a lab scan the slides to cd, instead of having prints made and scanning those. I just recently purchased a Minolta Dimage Dual Scan III film/slide scanner that does a GREAT job and only cost $262 plus shipping. If you MUST scan a print on a flatbed, I usually scan at a higher than default resolution and when I resize use the lower resolution to fit into size requirements. It seems to reduce the amount of resize distortion. I am not a pro at this digital thing so if what I just said is all wet, I am sure Tim will straighten me out. :?
|
|
|
|
|
jeffers_mz
Jun 5, 2003, 6:07 PM
Post #4 of 7
(1479 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2002
Posts: 357
|
To scan prints, start with a glossy if you can, and try to scan it at the resolution you want the finished image to be displayed.
You won't have much gain above 200 dpi, and the darker parts of the print are liable to get lost in the murk, more so with less expensive scanners since they don't do shadows well.
I've moved on to using a digital camera now, with my scanner gathering dust, but before that, the best results I got were starting with glossy 8 x 10 prints.
|
|
|
|
|
thomaskeefer
Jun 5, 2003, 7:50 PM
Post #5 of 7
(1479 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2002
Posts: 186
|
good advice and that site is great.. sorry about my ignorance but can you scan a regular 35mm print negative with a slide scanner... not slide film that has been processed into slides but the regular negatives...
thanks!!!
|
|
|
|
|
extrememountaineer
Jun 5, 2003, 7:59 PM
Post #6 of 7
(1479 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2003
Posts: 377
|
Yes, with my scanner there is just a different holder for slides and one for negatives. Very easy to operate.
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Jun 15, 2003, 2:52 PM
Post #7 of 7
(1479 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
I thought about scanning 15*21 mm prints instead of 10*15 mm ones to have better results on my computer, but once again, it means more money spent and more chemical products used... I don't know what to think, but my prints are much better than the pics submitted here on rc.com. It might be the scanner (HP OfficeJet R65) or the softwear too...
|
|
|
|
|
|
