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 11x17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In earlier days, I'd have taken these to a pro photographer who'd shoot them onto 4x5 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

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 11x17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In earlier days, I'd have taken these to a pro photographer who'd shoot them onto 4x5 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/

maybe his isp hasn't refreshed as it should?

Articus

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

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 11x17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In earlier days, I'd have taken these to a pro photographer who'd shoot them onto 4x5 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/

Richard Pini wrote:

I have a substantial art collection,

I'll say! Woot! ElfQuest! :)

I'd have taken these to a pro photographer who'd shoot
them onto 4x5 film, which I could then scan. This is no longer an option for me,

Due to price? Have you seen the new HP flat scanners? $200, and they come with stitching software ...

so I'm wondering - are there any digital cameras that
would serve this purpose?

Oh God yes!

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

This is because they do not have a Dpi setting at all.

http://www.ltlimagery.com/resolution.html
.... I scanned this page very quickly, but it looks like the guy can explain the concept.

Only the Megapixel rating is important.

There are 8-megapixel cameras out there for under $1000.

Professional cameras a couple years back were only 20 megapixels.

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

You would get a lossless image. JPG is FINE at a high quality setting.

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

No! Never do this! You can change the size, sure, but turn OFF "resample image".

Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi?

NO.

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.

Vist HP's page and look at the new 4600(?) scanners, maybe. http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/ho/WF06b/15179-64195-21 5155-15202- f25-303640-303642-303643.html

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

"Richard Pini" wrote in message

I have a substantial art collection, and many of the pieces are paintings way larger than the 11x17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In earlier days, I'd have taken these to a pro photographer who'd shoot them onto 4x5 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

I'd tend to run with the 35mm view expressed here

35mm SLRs really are going for a song because of the huge queues waiting for digital cameras

A good time to buy from a cost effectiveness point of view (that was until the camera distributors read this LOL!)

Compare Canon's Rebel and Digital Rebel

do to 2 cost flow charts based on sourcing digitally (camera, lenses, tripod, software) 35mm (camera, lenses, tripod, scanner, software) and a 3rd costing of hring pro photographer

the above is a rationality approach

If you want a DSLR and are looking for an excuse to purchase, well, you can't really have a better excuse at all

Have phun and keep us in the picture with what you decide

Articus

"deco_time" wrote in message

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

In article <1gjkfh8.7kvadm1xxcuioN%>, Johan W.
Elzenga wrote:

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 11x17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In earlier days, I'd have taken these to a pro photographer who'd shoot them onto 4x5 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?

Why assume I had not read the answers?

I posted here a little while after I did on the other group because (a) I didn't assume that everyone who reads the one group reads both, and I hoped for different perspectives on the question from people with different experiences (which, thanks to all, I have gotten) and (b) when I saw that my original post had NOT shown up here, I posted it manually.

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 24x36 mm image to work with. If I want to blow that up to make a 10x15 inch print, for example, it's going to get soft - even if only a bit.

Wish I'd kept my old Mamiya RB67...

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 17:55:05 -0400, Richard Pini
wrote:

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 24x36 mm image to work with. If I want to blow that up to make a 10x15 inch print, for example, it's going to get soft - even if only a bit.

No it's not. I regularly scan Kodachrome and Velvia slides and print at 16x12 with no problems.

--

Hecate - The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

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 24x36 mm image to work with. If I want to blow that up to make a 10x15 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?

Articus

"Peter Nixon" wrote in message

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 24x36 mm image to work with. If I want to blow that up to make a 10x15 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

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 22:08:42 GMT, "Articus Drools" wrote:

Hi Peter

Is it better to:

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

It depends... you should shoot what is appropriate at the time. If you have a need for a wider latitude, then shoot neg. Otherwise, I generally find you get sharper images with positive i.e. transparency film.

or

3 - shoot gegatives, print then scan from rint?

If you're shooting negs, scan the negs.

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

By a helluva long way.

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

Except polarisation, yes. :)

--

Hecate - The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

In news:Articus Drools typed:

Hi Peter

Is it better to:

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

For once I'll have to agree with Hecate on this. You choose the support that best match the desired result; If you doubt this, try a roll of Velvia 50, screw a circular polarizer on and go shoot some lanscape. The resulting color saturation will amaze you, it's so dramatic it's almost unreal.

3 - shoot gegatives, print then scan from rint?

NO.

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