scanned images

D
Posted By
DNT
May 10, 2006
Views
298
Replies
18
Status
Closed
when using ps, images I print from my scanner are always soft. I tried using the unsharp mask filter which helps a little, but not enough. any suggestions?

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

J
jaSPAMc
May 10, 2006
On 9 May 2006 19:55:49 -0700, "DNT" found these unused words floating about:

when using ps, images I print from my scanner are always soft. I tried using the unsharp mask filter which helps a little, but not enough. any suggestions?

Are you scanning enough detail for your printer to -=really=- use? Printers will interpolate data if the information isn’t sufficient for the size requested.
T
Tacit
May 10, 2006
In article ,
"DNT" wrote:

when using ps, images I print from my scanner are always soft. I tried using the unsharp mask filter which helps a little, but not enough. any suggestions?

What size and resolution are you scanning the images at?


Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
D
DNT
May 10, 2006
I usually use between 600 and 1200 dpi. My scanner also has a target size ottion which I set to the size I will be printing.
D
DNT
May 10, 2006
If by detail you refer to resolution, I would say yes there should be enough information.
J
jaSPAMc
May 10, 2006
On 10 May 2006 09:11:40 -0700, "DNT" found these unused words floating about:

If by detail you refer to resolution, I would say yes there should be enough information.

Then you have a problem with your scanner.
T
Tacit
May 11, 2006
In article ,
"DNT" wrote:

I usually use between 600 and 1200 dpi. My scanner also has a target size ottion which I set to the size I will be printing.

That much resolution is overkill; consumer-grade inkjet printers typically have a pixel resolution of between 240 and 280 pixels per inch, and even commercial offset printing rarely needs anything above 400 pixels per inch.

When you say the images look soft, do you mean on your screen or in print? How are you printing them? What is the source image (negative, slide, color photograph, printed piece)?


Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
J
jaSPAMc
May 11, 2006
On Thu, 11 May 2006 12:19:48 GMT, tacit found these unused words floating about:

In article ,
"DNT" wrote:

I usually use between 600 and 1200 dpi. My scanner also has a target size ottion which I set to the size I will be printing.

That much resolution is overkill; consumer-grade inkjet printers typically have a pixel resolution of between 240 and 280 pixels per inch, and even commercial offset printing rarely needs anything above 400 pixels per inch.

-=PRESUMING-= that the user is scanning/printing at 1:1 … !

-=IF=- the original is smaller, then perhaps 600 or even 1200 is -=not=- "overkill, but necessary to provide a crisp print.

When you say the images look soft, do you mean on your screen or in print? How are you printing them? What is the source image (negative, slide, color photograph, printed piece)?
T
Tacit
May 12, 2006
In article ,
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

I usually use between 600 and 1200 dpi. My scanner also has a target size ottion which I set to the size I will be printing.

That much resolution is overkill; consumer-grade inkjet printers typically have a pixel resolution of between 240 and 280 pixels per inch, and even commercial offset printing rarely needs anything above 400 pixels per inch.

-=PRESUMING-= that the user is scanning/printing at 1:1 … !

-=IF=- the original is smaller, then perhaps 600 or even 1200 is -=not=- "overkill, but necessary to provide a crisp print.

In the quoted part above, the original poster said " My scanner also has a target size o[p]tion which I set to the size I will be printing." Which means he is indeed printing at 1:1.


Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
J
jaSPAMc
May 12, 2006
On Fri, 12 May 2006 00:36:56 GMT, tacit found these unused words floating about:

In article ,
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

I usually use between 600 and 1200 dpi. My scanner also has a target size ottion which I set to the size I will be printing.

That much resolution is overkill; consumer-grade inkjet printers typically have a pixel resolution of between 240 and 280 pixels per inch, and even commercial offset printing rarely needs anything above 400 pixels per inch.

-=PRESUMING-= that the user is scanning/printing at 1:1 … !

-=IF=- the original is smaller, then perhaps 600 or even 1200 is -=not=- "overkill, but necessary to provide a crisp print.

In the quoted part above, the original poster said " My scanner also has a target size o[p]tion which I set to the size I will be printing." Which means he is indeed printing at 1:1.

No it doesn’t!

IF he sets the -=scan=- for 600 and then sets the print size, the end image could have a different dpi. One of HP’s and some other scanners ‘helpful’ over-rides.

Some of the better inkjunk and many lasers -=do=- have better resolution than 280 ppi.
J
JonH
May 12, 2006
Indeed many printers have higher resolution than 280 ppi (dpi?), but if the original poster is talking about scanning a PRINT, then any more resolution than 300 ppi IS overkill. It doesn’t matter one little but how well the printer will print ( whatever you scanned ) if it’s a print – it’s a "junk in , junk out" type of thing ( the scanned print being "junk." ) For a PRINT the resolution ( for justifying a higher ppi ) just …isn’t….there. Now if he was scanning a NEGATIVE, then that’s a different story – use 1200 or 2700 dpi and you will see the benifits.

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message
On Fri, 12 May 2006 00:36:56 GMT, tacit found these
unused
words floating about:

In article ,
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

I usually use between 600 and 1200 dpi. My scanner also has a target size ottion which I set to the size I will be printing.

That much resolution is overkill; consumer-grade inkjet printers typically have a pixel resolution of between 240 and 280 pixels per inch, and even commercial offset printing rarely needs anything above 400 pixels per inch.

-=PRESUMING-= that the user is scanning/printing at 1:1 … !

-=IF=- the original is smaller, then perhaps 600 or even 1200 is -=not=- "overkill, but necessary to provide a crisp print.

In the quoted part above, the original poster said " My scanner also has a target size o[p]tion which I set to the size I will be printing." Which means he is indeed printing at 1:1.

No it doesn’t!

IF he sets the -=scan=- for 600 and then sets the print size, the end image
could have a different dpi. One of HP’s and some other scanners ‘helpful’ over-rides.

Some of the better inkjunk and many lasers -=do=- have better resolution than 280 ppi.
F
Frank ess
May 12, 2006
JonH wrote:
Indeed many printers have higher resolution than 280 ppi (dpi?), but if the original poster is talking about scanning a PRINT, then any more resolution than 300 ppi IS overkill. It doesn’t matter one little but how well the printer will print ( whatever you scanned ) if it’s a print – it’s a "junk in , junk out" type of thing ( the scanned print being "junk." ) For a PRINT the resolution ( for justifying a higher ppi ) just …isn’t….there. Now if he was scanning a NEGATIVE, then that’s a different story – use 1200 or 2700
dpi and you will see the benifits.

My experience tells me scanning small prints at 600ppi is useful when making corrections or adjustments: it increases the number of pixels available for high-zoom work, spreads marks over a narrower range; and, it’s essentially free. Just easier to work with, for me.

Scanning some prints made from those old negatives can yiels strining results just not available at lower ppi:
http://www.fototime.com/5E21E09C4043371/orig.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/215BC26DE1300FF/orig.jpg
These original prints, less than three inches in the
smallest dimension, really do show amazing tones and details. On my 19-inch CRT monitor set at 1024×768, the original is represented at about 10% larger than life size. And just look at this thing. Amazing.


Frank ess

"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message
On Fri, 12 May 2006 00:36:56 GMT, tacit found
these
unused
words floating about:

In article ,
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

I usually use between 600 and 1200 dpi. My scanner also has a target size ottion which I set to the size I will be printing.

That much resolution is overkill; consumer-grade inkjet printers typically have a pixel resolution of between 240 and 280 pixels per inch, and even commercial offset printing rarely needs anything above 400 pixels per inch.

-=PRESUMING-= that the user is scanning/printing at 1:1 … !

-=IF=- the original is smaller, then perhaps 600 or even 1200 is -=not=- "overkill, but necessary to provide a crisp print.

In the quoted part above, the original poster said " My scanner also has a target size o[p]tion which I set to the size I will be printing." Which means he is indeed printing at 1:1.

No it doesn’t!

IF he sets the -=scan=- for 600 and then sets the print size, the end
image
could have a different dpi. One of HP’s and some other scanners ‘helpful’ over-rides.

Some of the better inkjunk and many lasers -=do=- have better resolution than 280 ppi.
T
Tacit
May 13, 2006
In article ,
"JonH" wrote:

Indeed many printers have higher resolution than 280 ppi (dpi?),…

DPI and PPI are not the same thing.

Most consumer inkjet printers advertise their resolution in terms of DPI, with 14,000 DPI and 28,800 DPI both being quite common. However, a printer "dot" can only be one solid color–solid cyan, solid magenta, solid yellow, or solid black, with no in-between colors and no shades of color possible.

It takes many, many printer dots to make up one single pixel. A scanned image is correctly measured in terms of pixels, not dots. If a printer advertises 28,800 dots per inch, that does not mean it can print an image scanned at 28,800 pixels per inch!

Effectively, image resolutionsbove 300 pixels per inch or so do not create higher-quality printouts on consumer inkjet printers.


Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
N
nomail
May 14, 2006
tacit wrote:

In article ,
"JonH" wrote:

Indeed many printers have higher resolution than 280 ppi (dpi?),…

DPI and PPI are not the same thing.

Most consumer inkjet printers advertise their resolution in terms of DPI, with 14,000 DPI and 28,800 DPI both being quite common. However, a printer "dot" can only be one solid color–solid cyan, solid magenta, solid yellow, or solid black, with no in-between colors and no shades of color possible.

It takes many, many printer dots to make up one single pixel. A scanned image is correctly measured in terms of pixels, not dots. If a printer advertises 28,800 dots per inch, that does not mean it can print an image scanned at 28,800 pixels per inch!

Effectively, image resolutionsbove 300 pixels per inch or so do not create higher-quality printouts on consumer inkjet printers.

You’ve got too many zeros. 1400 dpi and 2880 dpi is quite common for inkjet printers. 14,000 dpi and 28,800 dpi would be incredibly high.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl
J
JonH
May 14, 2006
Gee, really? That is why I was "quietly" questioning the previous poster about his post – "Some of the better inkjunk and many lasers -=do=- have better resolution than 280 ppi." Read the entire posting and you might notice this.

Now if you are referring to my mistake of talking about scanning negatives in terms of dpi, then we all make mistakes, don’t we. Just like you refer to ink jet printers that have resolution of 28,000 dpi being "quite common." Like Johan said, you might have too many zeros.

"tacit" wrote in message
In article ,
"JonH" wrote:

Indeed many printers have higher resolution than 280 ppi (dpi?),…

DPI and PPI are not the same thing.

Most consumer inkjet printers advertise their resolution in terms of DPI, with 14,000 DPI and 28,800 DPI both being quite common. However, a printer "dot" can only be one solid color–solid cyan, solid magenta, solid yellow, or solid black, with no in-between colors and no shades of color possible.

It takes many, many printer dots to make up one single pixel. A scanned image is correctly measured in terms of pixels, not dots. If a printer advertises 28,800 dots per inch, that does not mean it can print an image scanned at 28,800 pixels per inch!

Effectively, image resolutionsbove 300 pixels per inch or so do not create higher-quality printouts on consumer inkjet printers.

Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
J
jaSPAMc
May 14, 2006
…. and that’s why I stated ppi as in pixels per inch. If the printer requires a matrix of 6×6 ink dots to achieve a pixel then the printer’s ‘dpi’ is 1800 for a 300 ppi image.

Thus a phot printer at 2880 printer dpi, is capable (based on a 6×6 matrix) of 480 pixels represented per inch.

I have a laser with microfine toner that actually does print (4×4 matrix) at 1200 pixels per inch (4800 printer ‘dpi’)

On Sun, 14 May 2006 03:50:28 -0600, "JonH" found these unused words floating about:

Gee, really? That is why I was "quietly" questioning the previous poster about his post – "Some of the better inkjunk and many lasers -=do=- have better resolution than 280 ppi." Read the entire posting and you might notice this.

Now if you are referring to my mistake of talking about scanning negatives in terms of dpi, then we all make mistakes, don’t we. Just like you refer to ink jet printers that have resolution of 28,000 dpi being "quite common." Like Johan said, you might have too many zeros.

"tacit" wrote in message
In article ,
"JonH" wrote:

Indeed many printers have higher resolution than 280 ppi (dpi?),…

DPI and PPI are not the same thing.

Most consumer inkjet printers advertise their resolution in terms of DPI, with 14,000 DPI and 28,800 DPI both being quite common. However, a printer "dot" can only be one solid color–solid cyan, solid magenta, solid yellow, or solid black, with no in-between colors and no shades of color possible.

It takes many, many printer dots to make up one single pixel. A scanned image is correctly measured in terms of pixels, not dots. If a printer advertises 28,800 dots per inch, that does not mean it can print an image scanned at 28,800 pixels per inch!

Effectively, image resolutionsbove 300 pixels per inch or so do not create higher-quality printouts on consumer inkjet printers.

Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
T
Tacit
May 15, 2006
In article ,
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Thus a phot printer at 2880 printer dpi, is capable (based on a 6×6 matrix) of 480 pixels represented per inch.

Assuming an inkjet printer which claims 2880 dpi uses a 6×6 matrix to construct a pixel. Actually, in practice, a 6×6 matrix of printer dots would offer only 2^6, or 64, possible shades of color. Consumer inkjet printers use more than 6 by 6 printer dots to construct a pixel; their effective pixel resolutions are much lower than 480 pixels per inch.


Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com
J
jaSPAMc
May 15, 2006
On Mon, 15 May 2006 02:27:07 GMT, tacit found these unused words floating about:

In article ,
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Thus a phot printer at 2880 printer dpi, is capable (based on a 6×6 matrix) of 480 pixels represented per inch.

Assuming an inkjet printer which claims 2880 dpi uses a 6×6 matrix to construct a pixel. Actually, in practice, a 6×6 matrix of printer dots would offer only 2^6, or 64, possible shades of color. Consumer inkjet printers use more than 6 by 6 printer dots to construct a pixel; their effective pixel resolutions are much lower than 480 pixels per inch.

Your math is faulty … That would presume that each dot ois an independent colour. the correct is 2^36 for a 6 colour photo.
MR
Mike Russell
May 15, 2006
"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote in message
On Mon, 15 May 2006 02:27:07 GMT, tacit found these
unused
words floating about:

In article ,
Sir F. A. Rien wrote:

Thus a phot printer at 2880 printer dpi, is capable (based on a 6×6 matrix)
of 480 pixels represented per inch.

Assuming an inkjet printer which claims 2880 dpi uses a 6×6 matrix to construct a pixel. Actually, in practice, a 6×6 matrix of printer dots would offer only 2^6, or 64, possible shades of color. Consumer inkjet printers use more than 6 by 6 printer dots to construct a pixel; their effective pixel resolutions are much lower than 480 pixels per inch.

Your math is faulty … That would presume that each dot ois an independent
colour. the correct is 2^36 for a 6 colour photo.

The position of the dot in the cell is not significant to the final color. The number of shades for a 6×6 cell is 36 per ink color.

The total number of colors is significantly less than 36 ^ <number of inks> because the inks are not independent of one another. For example some shades of CMY have corresponding pure gray shades. For a 6 color printer, each color shares shades with its "light" counterpart. —
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections