|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
31 Mar 2005, 21:10 (Ref:1266583) | #1 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 179
|
Scanning photos
When you guys scan photos in, what settings do you find to be the best? I normally scan at 300dpi at 70%
Results aren't too bad but I'm sure I can make it better. Any advice would be appreciated. |
||
__________________
"The more you turn the wick up the faster it goes" - John Welch |
31 Mar 2005, 21:35 (Ref:1266617) | #2 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 161
|
Quote:
I have a Mustek USB 1200 Plus and I get very good results using 600dpi at 80% but I think its a case of trial and error using 1 picture as a base and try different settings Best of Luck IAN |
|||
__________________
Life is hard enough, why starve yourself as well. I intend to live forever---so far --so good! |
31 Mar 2005, 21:45 (Ref:1266627) | #3 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 179
|
I used to have stand alone epson jobby, but now I've bought a hewlett packard all-in-one printer thingy. I never used to rate these all-in-one things but tbh, it's not too bad at all, it's suprised me! Ok, it's nothing like a drum scanner but hey.
|
||
__________________
"The more you turn the wick up the faster it goes" - John Welch |
31 Mar 2005, 22:10 (Ref:1266648) | #4 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,578
|
I've got an HP all in one thingy - It's pre-set to scan at 300dpi but you can change the settings for each individual picture. If I'm scanning simple snaps I use the 300dpi but if I've got a pretty special picture I increase it to 600dpi and sharpen it up a bit as well. Simple case of trial and error I'm afraid!
Which HP all in one have you got? |
||
__________________
You win some, lose some, wreck some - Dale Earnhardt |
31 Mar 2005, 22:39 (Ref:1266685) | #5 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 179
|
Hi Sheila, it's an HP PSC 2410 Photosmart
|
||
__________________
"The more you turn the wick up the faster it goes" - John Welch |
31 Mar 2005, 22:46 (Ref:1266690) | #6 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,578
|
Mines an HP PSC 1110 so yours sounds a bit better than mine! Mine does exactly what it says on the box - printer, scanner, copier - with very good results. Keep trying!
|
||
__________________
You win some, lose some, wreck some - Dale Earnhardt |
1 Apr 2005, 10:02 (Ref:1266931) | #7 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 440
|
Usually, I'd stick to the highest settings available provided your system would support it; you can always reduce the file size/quality later if needed but at least you would have something easier/bigger to edit with.
|
||
__________________
L'ENDURANCE, C'EST LE MANS! |
1 Apr 2005, 18:26 (Ref:1267341) | #8 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 38
|
Hi All,
It all depends on what you are doing with the images after you have scanned them. If you will only view them on your screen the best is 72 dpi coz that's what a screen is, no point in scanning them at 300dpi or higher. Prints are 300dpi so no point in scanning them at 1200dpi. This is why newspapers ask for a 300 dpi image coz you get the best quality for printing. The rule that the higher dpi makes a better scan is not true!! To get the best quality to view them on your screen scan them at 72 dpi. Simple Just find out the output dpi you require and scan them at that. Rgd, Steve. |
||
|
2 Apr 2005, 01:34 (Ref:1267603) | #9 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 179
|
That's a good point about the monitor resolution only being 72dpi
|
||
__________________
"The more you turn the wick up the faster it goes" - John Welch |
2 Apr 2005, 09:58 (Ref:1267734) | #10 | ||
Racer
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 130
|
On the odd ocassion I have to use my scanner - I always scan at 300dpi.
It takes time to scan a load of photos - and most of that is opening the scanner and swapping the photos over. I scan them at 300dpi and then archive them to CD. Never bother with 72dpi. My scanner is reasonably new (year old or so) and uses USB2 - so the difference in time between a 72dpi and 300dpi shot is minimal. I don't really want to have to go back and scan in the print again - this way I can quite happily lose the original print - or it can be damaged. If you are editing photos - then scanning at 300dpi is pretty much essential - and makes your job a lot less of a fiddle. |
||
|
2 Apr 2005, 15:00 (Ref:1267909) | #11 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 179
|
Thanks for the tips guys
|
||
__________________
"The more you turn the wick up the faster it goes" - John Welch |
4 Apr 2005, 15:10 (Ref:1269952) | #12 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 739
|
If you have the negatives do it off them, provided you have a negative scanner. It takes longer but I find better results. Generally on my camera I get them put onto CD as I get them printed to.
Last edited by Phoenix1; 4 Apr 2005 at 15:11. |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bulk scanning of negatives? | Kelvin | Motorsport Art & Photography | 2 | 6 Dec 2005 13:17 |
V8 Radio scanning | Group'C' | Australasian Touring Cars. | 7 | 5 Oct 2004 09:58 |
Scanning Slides - HELP!!! | PaulSands | Motorsport Art & Photography | 3 | 2 May 2003 16:39 |
scanning photos | woodyracing | Motorsport Art & Photography | 12 | 2 Apr 2003 13:04 |
Scanning negatives | pauldavid | Motorsport Art & Photography | 2 | 2 Mar 2003 23:25 |