Debbie, a couple of things come to mind when I read your post.
First, when scanning photos, it’s possible you’re scanning them at a higher (maybe much higher) resolution than what you really need to. What is it you intend to do with them once they’re scanned? If you plan to print them at the same size as the original, you probably don’t need to scan at anything higher than 300ppi. If you want to print them twice the size (or roughly 10 X 8), you wouldn’t need to go beyond 600ppi for your scan and still be able to print at roughly 300ppi. These are rough numbers by the way. So, maybe you can decrease file size considerably by deciding if you really need them at 1200ppi.
A 3MB file is not very large in terms of "simple" file size. Are you sure it’s the file size in MB another programs don’t like? Might it be the physical size as measured in pixels? If you’re scanning at 1200ppi and your photo is 4 X 6, the "pixel count" on that image would be over 35.5 million pixels. That might be what other software is complaining about!
This is an excellent site for getting information about scanning. You might want to read through it and see if you really need to be scanning at 1200ppi. <
http://www.scantips.com/>
Please post again if you have more questions. I can think of more to say (I always can), but this might be enough information to get you past the present issue.
If anybody double checks my math, I made a typo! At 1200ppi, a 4 X 6 image is 4,800 X 7,200 pixels, and that’s actually a little over 34.5 million pixels. 🙂 Sorry.
Here is a little more info that may help provide some clues. I’m scanning genealogy photos. The high resolution makes fine editing much easier. Also, I can open the photos on my XP machine in any software. I cannot open them on machines with Windows 2000 or Windows 98 using MS Windows Picture and Fax Viewer or MS Paint. Of course they open just fine with any Adobe tool on the same operating systems. If it is a pixel count problem, and I do suspect your probably right, do you know what the limit is? I wanted to share the photos with friends and family members who may not have an Adobe product to view or work with them.
Debbie,
It’s ok to scan a higher resolution in order to make restoration easier. However, I wouldn’t send that large of a jpg to friends or family. Instead, I use the save to web feature to reduce the size to something that my recipients can more easily work with.
Your 4×6 at 1200 dpi will give you an image with 4800×7200 pixels. That’s enough for a 16"x24" print at 300 dpi.
If you want your recipients to only view the images on their monitor, you should probably follow the guidelines for Grant’s Challenge: longest side no greater than 800 pixels and file size less than 100kb.
If you intend the pictures to be printed, you should resize to something in the range of 200 to 300 dpi. Say 1200×1800 for a 4×6.
You can do this all from the save to web feature without resizing your original image.
My father uses PS7 and tells me that i should always scan my 35mm negatives at 4000ppi. Then I can edit and save as TIFF or JPEG. I’m scanning my negatives at 300 ppi and saving anywayas TIFF or JPEG depending on the situation.
I’ve been following the discussion on scanning photos and trying to figure if I need to rescan before saving to CD. Any ideas??
Anna Marie, I think the resolution you decide on is pretty personal. I have a tendency to scan at a higher resolution than what I really need, just so I’ll have one nice image in the "bank" in case I decide I want to do some extreme cropping before I print or make a print that’s bigger than the original.
If I were doing negatives, I would probably scan much higher than 300ppi, although 4,000ppi happens to go way beyond the optical resolution of my scanner. (It goes beyond the optical resolution of most consumer scanners, I think.) Most negatives are smaller than the actual prints a person would want. You don’t give yourself any room for enlargement if the scans of the negs are only 300ppi, since 300ppi is considered kind of the "target" resolution for printing on inkjet printers.
Before you scan too many at 300ppi, you might want to give some thought to how you might use the images once they’re in your computer. It could be you want to go up to the max optical capability of your scanner. And don’t confuse "optical" capabilities with "digital" because there is a difference when you read the fine print on the scanner box!
Thanks, Beth. I do have a dedicated film scanner. Dad upgraded his to a Nikon and gave me (hubby worked off the price,LOL) Microtek ArtixScan 4000T. But I think I will start scanning them at about 1200-1500 res. as I’m backing up negatives to CD’s. And some of these negs go back 30 or more years.
BTW, anyone out there hear of a way to scan 110 film negs? I can’t seem to find any neg carriers for the scanner to hold that size.And I’d like to back up some of these photos as both my younger sisters are dead and these are the only childhood photos we have. (See I was already taking the family photos at age 6-way back in the EARLY 60’s).
Well, must get back to working on my homework for Sara’s class PSE level II. Should be posted by tonight but I’m having trouble getting a webpage set up. (Sara, you didn’t see that, OK??) Just thought I would drop by and see what was going on in the forum.
You were six years old in the early 60s? Baby!!! 🙂
Sorry, but I can’t answer your question about the 110s. I’ve wondered if the flatbeds with transparency adapters will do those. Can anybody answer that question for us?
Hmmm. Not much out there, huh? I thought the transparency adapters for flatbeds were pretty flexible. That must not be true. Well I’m disillusioned! Maybe I’ll e-mail Bert and see if his Dimage does them. Thanks, Chuck.
Anne Marie,
A few weeks ago I had to scan a 110 negative for one of my clients because her father, who had died, was on it. (BTW, I use a dedicated film scanner for 35 mm). Cutting out a black paper mask didnot work quite well, because the black area obviously influenced the "exposure".
So I tried it this way: I took a piece of processed colour negative 35 mm film, cut out a hole the size of the 110 negative, put it carefully together in the negative holder et voilá…
I just only had to correct a little for the colour, density and contrast. I scanned at 2880 ppi so the image could be enlarged 2880/240 = 12x, sufficiently for a decent framed print.
And I still have a lot of exposed and processed film left from the time BD (Before digital)
Leen
Beth,
I’ve done some 110’s using a homemade holder, made from a file folder. My real issue was to get the spacing right above the glass surface. 2 thicknesses of the file folder stock seemed to give me the best focus . All this on my Epson 2400 scanner.
🙂
Brent
Brent, does your 2400 have a transparency adapter? See, because I’m so far behind the times technologically, I know nothing about any scanners besides my trusty Astra 1200S. You remember that guy, of course. 🙂 He’s still going strong.
Beth,
It does come with a built-in transparency adaptor, plus I bought a seperate transparency hood that can handle up to 5" x 5" tranparencies. My 1200S is still sitting on the shelf in case I need it’s long bed . It’s a good old thing ( lousy drivers , though, last time I used them, for Windows 2000 ).
🙂
Brent
Ah ha! So there are other add on devices that expand the capability even further, huh? Nice to know. Thank you. I’m collecting information, because – believe it or not – I really will replace Astra someday. Right now it’s easier to keep using it than to find a place to store it. 🙂
I’ve used Wess glass mount in my Nikon 2000.
Just cut the 110 neg and put in in the mount, not worrying about masking. The Wess (reusable) mounts hold them firmly.
Mac
Beth,
Don’t make me feel bad about being a baby (HA-I’m 46-going on 47) (LOL!!!) I too use the Astra flatbed but mine is the 600S- I just can’t give up the 8.5 by 14 bed size especially when scanning the documents for the family tree work.
See, I got into all this because of my genealogy. I’ve been getting some really old photos to scan and return (one of my G-G-grandfather from 1895-but had only 2 days to scan and return). I’ve been following the discussion on restoring old photos with great interest. I really need more time to work on all this so I can improve-but with the job at the bank, retired hubby (driving me nuts LOL), youngest son freshman in H.S. (drama club, plays, scouts, after school job, therapists, etc) I’m just batty from trying to get it all done. You see I’m writing this at 12:30 AM (Central time here in Alabama) and I can’t sleep. My mind just keeps running (don’t laugh-I don’t think it running away).
I’m working on Sara’s classes-taking Level II this time hoping to improve enough with Elements to post a creation to the Challenge like some of the fabulous stuff you guys all do. It just floors me how creative the group on this forum is, and how very friendly and helpful. I’ve already learned so much.
this may be the wrong place to ask this questions, but any help will be appreciated.
I take photos in SHQ, aboaut 2.2m per file, I want to enhance the photos and save as for printing, which is the best format to use where I will not lose quality?–when I try to save in jpeg format it reduces the image to about 25% of original size or if i use the PSD format it increases the size too much??
any help will be appreciated.
thanks
ron
Ron, this is where you need to work with both image format and image resolution. I assume the term "SHQ" refers to Super High Quality? What’s the camera resolution? That will have some impact on the photo size, although it’s not really a matter of "bigger is better."
You should be converting your images to PSD or TIFF, one of the non-lossy formats if you’re going to do any editing prior to printing. JPEG is a lossy format, meaning that every time you make a change and resave the image, some of the original data is thrown away through the compression process. This isn’t too disasterous, especially if you’ve only fiddling with the picture a little bit, but most of us prefer to avoid using it for much besides e-mailing and possibly storage, if space is an issue.
The resolution of the image is where the impact on physical size comes in. The "target" for resolution is about 300ppi, although this isn’t cast in stone, and you can get nice prints at less than that. Most digital camera images will open in Elements at 180ppi (PSE 2, anyway; I think the default was 72ppi in PSE 1) You’ll probably want to spend some time paying attention to the physical size of your images in relation to the number of pixels per inch. It will, of course, vary depending on the size of your camera, and you didn’t give me quite enough information to take very far.
If you’re still not clear on this, I’d suggest you start another thread. I happened to spot your post, but more people will probably respond – and it’ll be easier to find the information in the future – if you start over.
Beth,
I just found this thread. To answer your question about my Minolta film scanner, it does 35mm slides or film only. And my HP 5470c flatbed, which comes with a transparency adapter, also is designed for 35mm only. I have also had to fool around to scan some 110 size negatives. What I ended up doing was not totally satisfactory. I used the flatbed scanner with the transparency adapter, but instead of putting the film into the adapter, I laid it on the glass and just used the adapter as a light source. The 110 negatives actually fit in the adapter slot, but are cropped in one dimension by about 30%. So, by careful placement, I was usually able to get the interesting part of the picture,and just crop some of the background. It was tedious, but I didn’t have that many big negatives to do.
Of course, the other issue is that scanning negatives on a flatbed is not going to get you great quality, but it’s better than nothing.
Bert
Gee, Bert, that was really timely! I’m getting ready to go out, and you reminded me that I decided to just break down and take a few negatives to the camera shop! This is a great time to do that, thanks! 🙂 Bye.
