Greg Scholl Wrote (on another thread):
========================================
> I see a lot of folks posting - especially
> Dave E and John West - and their images
> always look really nice & clean & sharp,
> even though we are supposed to post no
> bigger than 200K {now 250K} on the board.
> So what is the secret sizing you guys use
> ...pixels, inches, etc. I normally work the
> image in PS, then keeping dropping the
> quality number down to 1 or 2 to get it
> under the requirements, then it doesn't
> come out that great.
>
> Granted sometimes we don't start with the
> raw, but with the jpeg. Suggestions!?
Hi, Greg -
While my big computer that I use for graphics is in the shop, I have been reading the excellent web pages on scanning theory and techniques by Wayne Fulton at [
www.scantips.com], linked to by Jim Gunning in the root post of this thread - [
ngdiscussion.net]. (I am posting on this thread in adddition to 'yours' to bump this one back up to the top.)
One major mistake that I am sure I've been making when scanning older pics is in setting the scan resolution incorrectly, in a naive attempt to obtain (approximately) the number of pixels (W x H) desired in the final image so as to minimize subsequent cropping and resampling. I didn't realize that this forces the scanner (or the Twain driver) to interpolate pixels, rather than leaving it up to Photoshop to do this when cropping or re-sizing later - and which Photoshop does much better using BiCubic resampling. See Wayne Fulton's discussion at [
www.scantips.com].
Once I'm done with Wayne's pages then I'll re-scan a couple of older pics that gave uncertain results and see if they come out better before deciding if I need a different scanner. (In which case I'll be checking out Jim's other suggestion - detailed descriptions of various scanners - at [
www.filmscanner.info].)
- Russ
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2014 01:57PM by Russo Loco.
