Basic dpi/resolution question (art archiving)

(Posting this to alt.comp.periphs.dcameras and alt.graphics.photoshop in the desire to cover more bases and in the hope that the overlap isn’t too severe.)

I suspect this is a Digital Camera 101-type question, but perhaps there’s more than I’ve so far been able to search on the web…
I have a substantial art collection, and many of the pieces are paintings way larger than the 11×17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In earlier days, I’d have taken these to a pro photographer who’d shoot them onto 4×5 film, which I could then scan. This is no longer an option for me, so I’m wondering – are there any digital cameras that would serve this purpose? It seems that all the dcameras I know of image at 72 dpi; yes, I can set the quality setting to TIFF and get a really large file (which I could then size up to 300 dpi in Photoshop) but to me that defeats the archival purpose – to have as accurate a file of the artwork as possible.

Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi? The only other solution I’ve found is to consider a sheet-fed or roll scanner, and I’d like to exhaust all other possibilities before going that route.

Richard Pini wrote:

(Posting this to alt.comp.periphs.dcameras and alt.graphics.photoshop in the desire to cover more bases and in the hope that the overlap isn’t too severe.)

I suspect this is a Digital Camera 101-type question, but perhaps there’s more than I’ve so far been able to search on the web…
I have a substantial art collection, and many of the pieces are paintings way larger than the 11×17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In earlier days, I’d have taken these to a pro photographer who’d shoot them onto 4×5 film, which I could then scan. This is no longer an option for me, so I’m wondering – are there any digital cameras that would serve this purpose? It seems that all the dcameras I know of image at 72 dpi; yes, I can set the quality setting to TIFF and get a really large file (which I could then size up to 300 dpi in Photoshop) but to me that defeats the archival purpose – to have as accurate a file of the artwork as possible.

Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi? The only other solution I’ve found is to consider a sheet-fed or roll scanner, and I’d like to exhaust all other possibilities before going that route.

You’ve gotten a lot of answers already, explaining you that dpi has nothing to do with it. If you don’t read the answers anyway, why post this question again?

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

I have a substantial art collection,

I’d have taken these to a pro photographer who’d shoot
them onto 4×5 film, which I could then scan. This is no longer an option for me,

so I’m wondering – are there any digital cameras that
would serve this purpose?

It seems that all the dcameras I know of
image at 72 dpi;

yes, I can set the quality setting to TIFF and get a
really large file

(which I could then size up to 300 dpi in Photoshop)

Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi?

The only other
solution I’ve found is to consider a sheet-fed or roll scanner, and I’d like to exhaust all other possibilities before going that route.

I have a substantial art collection, and many of the pieces are paintings way larger than the 11×17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In earlier days, I’d have taken these to a pro photographer who’d shoot them onto 4×5 film, which I could then scan. This is no longer an option for me, so I’m wondering – are there any digital cameras that would serve this purpose? It seems that all the dcameras I know of image at 72 dpi; yes, I can set the quality setting to TIFF and get a really large file (which I could then size up to 300 dpi in Photoshop) but to me that defeats the archival purpose – to have as accurate a file of the artwork as possible.

Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi? The only other solution I’ve found is to consider a sheet-fed or roll scanner, and I’d like to exhaust all other possibilities before going that route.
Thanks in advance!

Richard Pini

Is there any reason why you can’t use film? 35mm + Kodachrome will give good image quality, and has excellent archival properties.
HTH

Peter

In news:Peter Nixon typed:

Is there any reason why you can’t use film? 35mm + Kodachrome will give good image quality, and has excellent archival properties.
HTH

Peter

I couldn’t agree more. Kodachrome 64 is an elegant, cheap and very long lasting solution. Can be scanned in any photo finisher for about a dollar each and I have 40 + years old slide that look as good as the day they came back from Kodak. On the other hand, I have 3 or 4 years old CD’s that are now unreadable as the dye has apparently deteriorated in them, so the material they contained is all lost…

—
Odysea video production
Come dive with us!
www.odysea.ca

Richard Pini wrote:

(Posting this to alt.comp.periphs.dcameras and alt.graphics.photoshop in the desire to cover more bases and in the hope that the overlap isn’t too severe.)

I suspect this is a Digital Camera 101-type question, but perhaps there’s more than I’ve so far been able to search on the web…
I have a substantial art collection, and many of the pieces are paintings way larger than the 11×17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In earlier days, I’d have taken these to a pro photographer who’d shoot them onto 4×5 film, which I could then scan. This is no longer an option for me, so I’m wondering – are there any digital cameras that would serve this purpose? It seems that all the dcameras I know of image at 72 dpi; yes, I can set the quality setting to TIFF and get a really large file (which I could then size up to 300 dpi in Photoshop) but to me that defeats the archival purpose – to have as accurate a file of the artwork as possible.

Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi? The only other solution I’ve found is to consider a sheet-fed or roll scanner, and I’d like to exhaust all other possibilities before going that route.

You’ve gotten a lot of answers already, explaining you that dpi has nothing to do with it. If you don’t read the answers anyway, why post this question again?

In news:Peter Nixon typed:

Is there any reason why you can’t use film? 35mm + Kodachrome will give good image quality, and has excellent archival properties.
HTH

Peter

I couldn’t agree more. Kodachrome 64 is an elegant, cheap and very long lasting solution. Can be scanned in any photo finisher for about a dollar each and I have 40 + years old slide that look as good as the day they came back from Kodak. On the other hand, I have 3 or 4 years old CD’s that are now unreadable as the dye has apparently deteriorated in them, so the material they contained is all lost…

In article , deco_time
wrote:

In news:Peter Nixon typed:

Is there any reason why you can’t use film? 35mm + Kodachrome will give good image quality, and has excellent archival properties.
HTH

Peter

I couldn’t agree more. Kodachrome 64 is an elegant, cheap and very long lasting solution. Can be scanned in any photo finisher for about a dollar each and I have 40 + years old slide that look as good as the day they came back from Kodak. On the other hand, I have 3 or 4 years old CD’s that are now unreadable as the dye has apparently deteriorated in them, so the material they contained is all lost…

You (and others) make a good point. I suppose there’s a certain, um, retentiveness in my wanting to scan this art same size at minimum 300 dpi – a lot of it is for print reproduction and the folks to whom I supply the files like high dpi. I’ve used Kodachrome in the past and know it’s good; my only concern is that no matter how fine-grained it is, I’ve got a 24×36 mm image to work with. If I want to blow that up to make a 10×15 inch print, for example, it’s going to get soft – even if only a bit.

In news:Peter Nixon typed:

Is there any reason why you can’t use film? 35mm + Kodachrome will give good image quality, and has excellent archival properties.
HTH

Peter

You (and others) make a good point. I suppose there’s a certain, um, retentiveness in my wanting to scan this art same size at minimum 300 dpi – a lot of it is for print reproduction and the folks to whom I supply the files like high dpi. I’ve used Kodachrome in the past and know it’s good; my only concern is that no matter how fine-grained it is, I’ve got a 24×36 mm image to work with. If I want to blow that up to make a 10×15 inch print, for example, it’s going to get soft – even if only a bit.

Wish I’d kept my old Mamiya RB67…

HTH

Peter

In news:Peter Nixon typed:

Is there any reason why you can’t use film? 35mm + Kodachrome will give good image quality, and has excellent archival properties.
HTH

Peter

You (and others) make a good point. I suppose there’s a certain, um, retentiveness in my wanting to scan this art same size at minimum 300 dpi – a lot of it is for print reproduction and the folks to whom I supply the files like high dpi. I’ve used Kodachrome in the past and know it’s good; my only concern is that no matter how fine-grained it is, I’ve got a 24×36 mm image to work with. If I want to blow that up to make a 10×15 inch print, for example, it’s going to get soft – even if only a bit.

Wish I’d kept my old Mamiya RB67…

1 – make your prints direct from the Kodachrome – the Cibachrome process is
superb. Scan from there, if you want.

2 – I often scan 35 mm, at 4000 x 6000 pixels. Scanners are cheap now.

HTH

Peter

Hi Peter

Is it better to:

1 – shoot transparencies then scan from the transparency
2 – shoot negatives then scan from negative

or

3 – shoot gegatives, print then scan from rint?

The reason I ask is that a "conservation of energy" tweaked to "conservation of image fidelity" may mean that scanning from negatives or transparencies may have the edge over scanning from print

Once the images are in the ‘pooter well, almost anything is achievable innit?

Hi Peter

Is it better to:

1 – shoot transparencies then scan from the transparency
2 – shoot negatives then scan from negative

3 – shoot gegatives, print then scan from rint?