Scanning in film camera photo lab prints?

[What's In A Name?]

I realize this might be a bit off topic but I hope someone can confirm this.

I had asked my all in one tech support for my lexmark machine what
resolution I should scan photos that were taken with a film camera/developed
at a local photo lab etc so that I may print those scanned images out in
sizes up to 8x10. He said I only needed to go as high as 300dpi, anything
higher would make the scanner work really slow and then anything higher
would just be a waste of space on my drive. He said my prints would be
outstanding.

Can anyone confirm this?

Thanks.

[Bob Williams]

Tech Support is basically correct.
A print from a local photolab only has about 300 pixel/inch of
information. So scanning it at anything higher just gives you a larger
file size but no additional image information. (You can't get something
for nothing).
Keep in mind, however, that if your original print is 4 x 6, the image
quality of an 8 x 10 will suffer somewhat in comparison. But it will
still be pretty good. You MIGHT help yourself a little bit by resampling
the image in Photoshop (Bicubic Interpolation) so your image will be
8x10 at 300 pixels/inch. This may smooth out pixelation a little bit.
Bob Williams

[Tony Morgan]

In message <414FE337...@cox.net>, Bob Williams
<mytbob...@cox.net> writes

I'd disagree absolutely Bob, and I suspect that you haven't had an 8 x
10 printed at a photo lab from a scanned image to say this.

I'd suggest that you:

1. Scan at 300dpi a 5 x 4 print taken from a reasonable 35mm camera's
neg.

2. Repeat (1) at the maximum optical dpi of your scanner.

3. Take (1) and (2) above to your photo lab and get 10 x 8s of each.

4. Compare.

All photo labs resample the supplied image, but the difference is most
noticeable in the results.

It's exactly the same principle as the difference in lab-printed 10 x 8s
from a 3Mpx digital camera compared with the same from a 5Mpx digital
camera - and the difference is as noticeable as in the different
scanning resolutions.
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

[James Silverton]

"What's In A Name?" <What'sInA...@email.com> wrote in message
news:0c-dnfGyKs7...@comcast.com...

I agree that scanning at 300dpi is probably adequate but, if you
intend to do any resizing or clipping, 600dpi would be better, IMHO. I
don't find that a 600dpi scan of a 4x6 print is particularly slow on
my relatively inexpensive Canon D1250.

--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA

[Frank ess]

I scan 8x10s and larger at 300dpi, smaller photos at 600 dpi. At those
specifications they make decent 8x10 prints, and (important to me, if
not to others) the transition areas are wider, making it easier (for me,
if not for others) to apply more accurately what corrections I make, and
distribute small errors over larger areas, reducing or eliminating the
abruptness of manipulations at final size.

--
Frank ess

[Jer]

James Silverton wrote:

> I agree that scanning at 300dpi is probably adequate but, if you
> intend to do any resizing or clipping, 600dpi would be better, IMHO. I
> don't find that a 600dpi scan of a 4x6 print is particularly slow on
> my relatively inexpensive Canon D1250.
>

This time factor may depend more on the level of urgency for another
beer run, wouldn't it? OTOH, a slow scan rate may help that situation a
great deal.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

[Big Bill]

I think you'd be better off scanning at a resolution that will get you
300PPI *at the final printed size*.
IOW, to print that 4x6 at 8x10, scan at 600PPI; that'll get you 300PPI
at 8x10.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

[Bob Williams]

It all sounds logical except that a drugstore print does not have more
than 300 pixels/inch of image information. If that's all the information
that is present, you can scan until you are blue in the face and you
cannot get more information than that from the scan. For instance, if
you scan a 4x5 print at 600 ppi/dpi, you will, indeed, generate a file
with 7.2MP of data but remember, your original print had only 4x5 @ 300
ppi or 1.8 MP. of image information. Where did the new pixels come from?
Suppose you scanned the 4x5 print at 1200 dpi. You would generate a 28.8
MP file. Even though the math says you can print a 16 x 20 print at 300
dpi, (which should be excellent quality), you know intuitively that this
cannot be possible and it isn't.
You may get a warm fuzzy feeling from scanning a drugstore print at 600
dpi, but the extra data is bogus. You could get the same effect by
scanning a 4x5 at 300 dpi and resampling in Photoshop to 8x10 at 300 ppi.
A worthwhile read would be a book called Scantips by our resident
scanning guru, Wayne Fulton. See especially:
http://www.scantips.com/basics08.html
Bob Williams

[Bob Williams]

Big Bill wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:19:03 -0700, Bob Williams

> What I saw was this:

> "I had asked my all in one tech support for my lexmark machine what
> resolution I should scan photos that were taken with a film
> camera/developed at a local photo lab etc so that I may print those
> scanned images out in sizes up to 8x10."

> No mention of a drug store there.
> While what you say may well be true, there's nothng to say the OP was
> dealing with a drug store.
> He *may* have been, but he didn't say he was.

>
> Bill Funk
> Change "g" to "a"

A "Drugstore Print" is a generic term for a print made commercially for
the general public. It doesn't really make much difference whether,
Walgreens, WalMart, or Kodak makes the print. It still contains only
about 300 dpi resolution, and scanning at 600 dpi will not create more
image information than scanning at 300 dpi. Scanning a color print at
600 dpi is basically equivalent to scanning it at 300 dpi and resampling
to 600 dpi.in a photo editor.
Wayne Fulton (Scantips) has this to say:
"I am suggesting that the real life benefit of scanning 35 mm color
prints above 300 dpi is mostly wishful thinking."
Bob