What's new
By:
Photoshop Gurus Forum

Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Scanner vs digital photo


P

puppychew

Power User
Messages
283
Likes
13
Hi, I have some paper photographs I would like to make digital.

My father has a new flatbed scanner. The setting was 300dpi. The final digital image dimensions was apx 1600 x 1100 and 180 kb.

This is a poor quality image. I was hoping for at least 600 kb.

I increased the dpi but the dimensions also increased.

What am I doing wrong to scan a photo into a decent quality image.

Would it be better to take a digital photo of the photograph?
 
To me it sounds like you have said everything backwards, Scan it at a high-resolution you can always bring it down.
 
The scanner is a Epson v600. I guess I really don't understand this. Should I use more than 300 dpi? If I go higher won't it be the same quality but a larger image?

Would I get better quality taking a photo of the photo and fixing it in photoshop?
 
If you scan your photos too small you will be very unhappy always scan large high resolution. There is a thread out here discussing your best process for scanning photos, I believe Tom mann (member) started a thread about resolution you may want to read that
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the link. So I should scan at 1000 or higher ppi/dpi for the best quality. I am still confused with Resolution #1 on the link. Increasing the ppi/dpi also increases the dimensions. By increasing the dimension size doesn't that keep the quality the same?
 
Easy way to understand it is, if you have let's say 100 dpi on the document of 10"x 10", every square inch of that image will have 100 pixels. If you increased the dimensions to 20 x 20, you are doubling one pixel eventually it's going to break(not look so good). it's like a drawn image on an elastic band when you stretch it out it doesn't look so good, but when you bring it back you're golden. It is always best to start with a high-resolution you can always scan back but you can't scan forward, without losing quality if you know what I mean..
 
I think I'm getting there. If the dpi is increased from 300 to 1000 there should be more pixels per inch and better quality.

When I look at the dimensions, the dimensions are increased because there are more pixels per inch but it should be the same physical size. I had thought the size in inches was also increasing which would water down the pixels.
 
I would say so, just because you're only going to get the photo that you scanned not the surrounding you won't have to edit it out
 
I just looked closer at the photos I scanned. By increasing the dpi I doubled the dimensions in inches. I put 2 photos in bridge. Both are 72 ppi although I set 300 dpi and 1000 dpi. One is 22 inches wide the other is 43 inches wide.

I must be doing something wrong when scanning?
 
I would suggest that you do a search on Google using the phrase "how to scan photos" you would probably get more easier understood instruction, than from me... that's for sure
 
Puppy, your first guess that you hardly get any better quality by increasing the resolution above 300 dpi was absolutely correct (for most prints).

For exceptionally sharp, custom-made prints on untextured paper, you might gain a bit more by going up to 600 dpi, but not above that.

In contrast, transparencies, negatives and slides, have the highest resolution -- for those, the point of diminishing returns is usually around 4000 dpi (more or less, depending on the film) .

As suggested above, there are many, many sources of info on optimal scanning this on the web.

Tom M
 
Oh, and to answer your question about scanning vs re-photographing, both methods can produce good results. The v600 is a *very* competent scanner. For prints, in the hands of a good operator, it can produce results that are among the best available. I have its big brother, the v750 sitting next to me and I wouldn't trade it for anything (in the same price class).

In reality, the only situations in which re-photographing a print is a better choice is for (a) enormous size artwork that doesn't fit in a scanner, and/or (b) prints on highly textured paper. In the latter case, one can set up lights to minimize the texture, whereas one doesn't have this option with a conventional flatbed scanner.

HTH,

Tom
 
Back
Top