Is a scanned image better to work with than a …

JE
Posted By
James_Earl_Jones
Apr 14, 2004
Views
426
Replies
25
Status
Closed
image pulled from a cd to the hard drive?

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

JS
John_Slate
Apr 14, 2004
the image on the cd was probably scanned at some point.

image quality is determined by among other things, pixel count, artifacting, and color content.

there are cheap scanners and expensive scanners…

the same goes with cameras.

your question is way too open-ended to answer effectively.
JE
James_Earl_Jones
Apr 14, 2004
Well i now each file or image is at 25MB, which means absolutely nothing to me.
JS
John_Slate
Apr 14, 2004
how many pixels wide by how many pixels high?

to be used in what size area?

do the math.

pixels per inch.

division.

of course if your cd images were already resampled there is no guarantee of quality.

view at 100%.

do they look sharp?
JE
James_Earl_Jones
Apr 14, 2004
at 100% they look very sharp. i was advised by my lab that i can go all the way up to an 11 x 14 before the quality starts to break up. i was just curious to know if i wanted to increase the ppi, could i do it with affecting the print size.
JS
John_Slate
Apr 14, 2004
300ppi is only a guideline not an unbreakable rule.

Many will say that 1.5 to 1.8 times the screen ruling of an imagesetter output is sufficient resolution.

The type of imagery is also a factor.

Product shots with type need more resolution than soft effect shots.

I would resize without resampling to see what resolution you end up with.

For the average type of image, I wouldn’t start getting really concerned until the resolution starts to approach parity with the screen ruling. Not to say that using a 190ppi image for a 175lpi output is an ideal situation, but it will probably be barely sufficient.
L
LRK
Apr 14, 2004
I almost always scan with more resolution than I need and then keep an untouched copy of the higher res image. I can always throw away pixels but cannot get them back without rescanning.

I generally start at 600 ppi or higher. If it’s a photo restoration job I start at about 1200 ppi and 16bit so I have an abundance of pixels to work with for the initial pixel shifting adjustments.
JE
James_Earl_Jones
Apr 14, 2004
I really need to get a scanner than…man!
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Apr 14, 2004
no,

what you need to do is your homework first.
L
LRK
Apr 14, 2004
Depends on the CD. If it’s a high resolution Comstock CD, you’ll get better quality.

Mike is right though. 🙂
JE
James_Earl_Jones
Apr 14, 2004
you on the homework…i just recently bought photoshop: classroom in a book.
L
LRK
Apr 14, 2004
That’s a great book for starting out James.
AW
Allen_Wicks
Apr 14, 2004
PS: Classroom in a Book is excellent.

The source of the CD will give you a big clue. If it is from a reputable source and you paid a fair amount of money for it, 25 MB image files are likely to provide good quality 10 x 12 hard copy images (or larger but for larger you must perform trial-and-error based on each hard copy output device).

If the CD was cheap or free, trial-and-error is best to determine the possible output quality.

Remember that every photo belongs to the photo creator, NOT to you just because a CD is in your hand. A specific use release must exist or you cannot use those images for anything.
JE
James_Earl_Jones
Apr 14, 2004
These images are my images…why wouldn’t I legal rights to them? The lab I bring my stuff to is very reputable and do very nice work.
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
Apr 14, 2004
Of course you have legal rights to your own images: your copyright was established at the moment that you clicked your camera’s shutter!

(You can get even greater protection by filing with the Copyright Office in DC but it is expensive and probably unnecessary unless you are going to distribute your images where they could be illegally copied.)
MM
Mike McBride
Apr 15, 2004
James,
Are you "the" James Earl Jones, actor extraordinaire? Forgive me if your not, I’m not being sarcastic. I’ve run into several professional actors and musicians in these forums.

Anyway, a quick and easy way to determine at what size you can print your digital file and still maintain "photo quality" is to divide the horizontal and vertical pixel resolution by 300. It’s generally accepted that 300dpi (dots per inch) is required for "photo quality" prints, though as John pointed out, this isn’t a hard-n-fast rule.

Say your image file shows that its size is 3000 wide x 2400 high at 25MB. (You can determine this by opening the file into Photoshop and selecting "Image Size" from the Image Menu.) By dividing those numbers by 300 you’ll find you can comfortably print photo quality images up to 8-inches x 10-inches in size.

Another thing to keep in mind when scanning is the grain of the print or photo. Scans of photos will generally increase the grain, as the scanners fixed pixel count will usually be lower than the photo’s grain. The faster the film the larger the grain, and the higher the quality the scanner the more the pixels its CCD will contain.

For the best quality output, the ideal scanning solution is to use a scanner with a high "optical resolution" (over 1200dpi) and be scanning pictures taken with slow ISO film (100 or lower) .

To answer your original question, when I have had my photos scanned at labs and copied to CDs, I’ve found that they didn’t scan at high enough resolutions for decent sized prints. I think labs like Ritz and Wolf assume you want the images on CD for use on a computer, where lower resolutions are acceptable. However, if you want prints from your scans, you’re better off scanning them yourself, so you can control the quality by setting the scan resolution yourself. Alternatively, you can find a "Pro" lab that can scan at high resolutions, however this will be costly. Better to invest your money in a scanner and do it yourself.

That’s my two cents. Good luck.

Mike
L
LRK
Apr 15, 2004
Good points Mike. I’ve done a couple of jobs for the Burt Reynold’s museum over the past two years. When the first one came to me, they provided me with a CD with what was supposed to be professional high res photos from Ritz, if I remember right.

When I opened the photos I knew they would never work. The resolution was too low and the images were not scanned right. I went back to the museum and asked for images I could scan myself. There was a huge difference in quality and the jobs turned out nice. Had I used their images it would have been very bad.

So… you can’t always trust something just because it comes from a lab.
JE
James_Earl_Jones
Apr 16, 2004
Mike, JEJ is my forum name I am not the actor, although it would be nice. The lab I bring my stuff to is a pro lab and they do scan everything in high resolution. I am just getting frustrated…for example I printed up a 5 x 7 sample print from one of my images, just to see the print quality. The print looked really good hardly any pixels, but if I remember right it was only at like 173 ppi. Whenever I try to increase the ppi my image gets bigger and I can’t print it at a 5 x 7. I am very illiterate when it comes to this stuff. I just never thought it would be this difficult. I have a epson 2200 printer and a 17" Apple studio flatscreen monitor not sure if this will mean or is suppose to mean anything.

Thanks for the comments and suggestions. JEJ
AW
Allen_Wicks
Apr 16, 2004
You just need to learn a bit about sizing to get decent print resolution [Note that "hardly any pixels" is NOT good enough]. Your Epson SP2200 and good scans should easily print 10×12 true photo quality on "Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper." Most other papers will have much lesser quality.

Just go to Image/Image Size in PS and set the ppi to 240 and the image size to the size you desire while leaving the other settings at

Constrain Proportions: checked
Resample Image: checked, and set to Bicubic.

To send emails do the same thing, except set ppi at 72. For submittalls to most publications, set ppi to 300. general rule is that the Pixel dimensions size number at the top of the Image Size window should not be any larger than your original; if as you resize for printing it increases more than the original your print is likely to be affected.

Note that there can be lots more to this. The above are the primer level directions. You can tweak more as you learn more.
TL
Tim_Lookingbill
Apr 16, 2004
And if you’re resizing to all those mentioned by Allen that involve resampling, work from the original for each resizing.
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
Apr 17, 2004
Just to clarify:

If you check "Resample Image" and change ANY dimensions — your files WILL be resampled.

If you are increasing the size of the dimensions of the document, additional pixels WILL be created.

Think of your pixels as mosaic tiles which build a picture on a floor. You have enough tiles to fill a small room. But now you want to spread them out to fill a bigger room so all that you can do is put more grout between the tiles.

When you "Resample" an image in Photoshop, all that you are doing is filling the spaces between your original pixels with meaningless muddy grout. Coloured grout perhaps — but meaningless mud just the same.

The moral of the story? Start with enough pixels in your original scan for your final purpose.

James:
Try leaving "Resample Image" UNchecked but change the dimensions of the image. If you are left with more than 150 ppi, you will probably get acceptable results from your inkjet.
MM
Mike McBride
Apr 17, 2004
James,
The way I "resize" images is to do it during the scan. For example, if my picture is 4×6-inches, and all I want is another 4×6-inch copy, I’ll scan the original at 300dpi (you’re using ppi, but basically we’re talking about the same thing). This gets me an exact dimensional copy of the original.

If, however, I want an 8×12-inch enlargement, I simply double my scan setting to 600dpi. Then, I open the image into Photoshop, "uncheck" resampling and reset my dpi to 300. Bam! The image instantly becomes twice the size and at 300dpi, which gives me photo quality prints. Using this procedure, you don’t get the "muddy" color input between your dots, as Ann pointed out.

You can keep doing this to the limits of your scanner. I recommend staying below the scanner’s "optical" resolution. Avoid interpolating your images to sizes above it, as interpolation introduces noise and artifacts into your image as it is calculating the new size. It also softens your image, which gets worse the larger you go.

I hope this helps,
Mike
R
Ram
Apr 17, 2004
That’s a very clever and accurate simile, Ann.
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
Apr 17, 2004
Thank you Ramón.

When scanning, I try to scan from the original film and use either the full Optical Resolution of the scanner or, if I need a smaller image, the Optical resolution divided by an integer such as 2 or 4.
RW
Rene_Walling
Apr 19, 2004
3 works too you know
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
Apr 19, 2004
Integers are integers……AKA known as "whole numbers"……

:~)

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.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections