Scanning for web use: better scanner or post-processing?

[gbenaim]

Hi all,

I need to send my work to some portfolio reviews, and need to get better scans than I'm getting at the moment. It was reccomended that I get a flatbed scanner, as the all-in-one I currently use probably won't give me what I need. If so, which one would you reccomend? Will a better scanner make a big difference at relatively small file sizes ( e.g. 700 pixels, no more than 200kb for one review), or should I invest my time in processing in ps? I'm scanning finished prints, btw, not negatives. Thanks for you help,

GB

 

[biss9411]

Hi. This question interests me because I find myself straining to glean the last drop of quality out of each ancient piece of equipment I own, and I think in many cases this effort is worth it--the newer the stuff, the shorter its lifespan anyway(for entry- to mid-level stuff), and often things like sensors are cheaper, lower quality types. I often scan 4x6 prints from the old days to enlarge as digital negatives for gum printing. I use an hp scanjet 5200c (10? year old flatbed), and usually scan only up to 1600 ppi. Often, the driver and interface determine how much of that capability you get to use, and how directly you can determine what you get. I use free unix-based software (Xsane with Macports) to access my scanner options directly on my Mac (i.e. bypassing TWAIN). Anyway, about those web images: I always always make the best scan I think I will ever want, then adjust in photoshop, but you could use theGimp of course, which is free. You'll always have to adjust levels unless your scanner driver lets you, although it often doesn't do it nicely. In photoshop, you can use actions and the batch command to run your resizing method on several files at once, so once it's set up, it's no big deal. There are lots of tutorials online about making actions and using batch. Bottom line: I don't know what scanner you have, but chances are, for small works, you can get a decent picture with it, if you make sure you're the one who's making choices about the end result, rather than the software. I wouldn't recommend scanning at low resolution for a low-res end product. You also won't have a nice detailed image to use for other things at another time. I think you'd have to get a much better scanner to get a better image, unless your scanner is all dusty inside like mine.
Let me know if you want some tips on streamlining your processing! I apologize if I went on and on about the obvious.

 

[donbga]

Hi all,

I need to send my work to some portfolio reviews, and need to get better scans than I'm getting at the moment. It was reccomended that I get a flatbed scanner, as the all-in-one I currently use probably won't give me what I need. If so, which one would you reccomend? Will a better scanner make a big difference at relatively small file sizes ( e.g. 700 pixels, no more than 200kb for one review), or should I invest my time in processing in ps? I'm scanning finished prints, btw, not negatives. Thanks for you help,

GB

I would look for a used Epson 2450 or 3200. These can be found for $50 or $60 on eBay and will do all that you require as long as your image size doesn't exceed 8x10. The free Epson scanning software should be enitely adequate for your needs.

For editing after scanning PS Elements or GIMP will be an inexpensive option.

Don Bryant

 

[gbenaim]

For my purposes

For my immediate purposes, as I have a deadline in a week for submission, would you put yoyr time and energy into getting a new scanner or learning how to use Gimp?

 

[pschwart]

For my immediate purposes, as I have a deadline in a week for submission, would you put yoyr time and energy into getting a new scanner or learning how to use Gimp?

No amount of post-processing with GIMP or Photoshop can fully correct a fundamentally deficient scan. A good scan will require very little processing -- set white and black points, crop, size the image, sharpen a bit, and you are done. If your all-in-one has sufficient density range and optical resolution you
should be able to create acceptable images for online viewing. If not, better start shopping
Another issue: if your monitor isn't calibrated you will have some more work to do before correcting your scans. You should at least try to calibrate the brightness and contrast.

 

[gbenaim]

On a related topic, now that I'm doing some processing, mainly sharpening and resizing, there's no way I can get the files down to the required 200mb they're asking for. The specs are 700 pixels on the short side and 200mb file size. How low resolution does a scan have to be to get 200mb?

 

[pschwart]

On a related topic, now that I'm doing some processing, mainly sharpening and resizing, there's no way I can get the files down to the required 200mb they're asking for. The specs are 700 pixels on the short side and 200mb file size. How low resolution does a scan have to be to get 200mb?

If the images will only be viewed on a monitor they don't need to be more than 72 dpi. If they are monochrome you can make them 8-bit grayscale to minimize jpegs to minimize the file size. For example, a 6"x6" grayscale at 72 dpi will be about 180k.

 

[biss9411]

On a related topic, now that I'm doing some processing, mainly sharpening and resizing, there's no way I can get the files down to the required 200mb they're asking for. The specs are 700 pixels on the short side and 200mb file size. How low resolution does a scan have to be to get 200mb?

I agree that you should only have to adjust levels and make a few adjustments to match the original (if your monitor is close).

To get the size that you want, resize to your target resolution without resampling (no data loss), then resample to the pixel dimensions you want (lossy). There will be a preview file size before you commit. Choose a file format that compresses. For easy web viewing at the specified size, make it 72 or 96 ppi (that's crt screen res and average laptop res respectively).

If you're not going to print it digitally, no need to scan over 300 ppi. What size are your prints?

 

[donbga]

For my immediate purposes, as I have a deadline in a week for submission, would you put yoyr time and energy into getting a new scanner or learning how to use Gimp?

A week? Take your work to someone that can provide you the output you need if that is indeed a hard deadline. A week isn't nearly enough time to do what you want to accomplish since this isn't something you have done before and have experience with.

Don Bryant