ideal scanner settings for archiving traditional prints?

[yoda313]

Ok I'm getting ready to eventually scan a lot of old family photos. My scanner has the following dpi settings 300, 600, and 1200. My 2.1 megapixel digital camera takes pics at 300dpi and is very good.

I did a test scan at 600dpi and it came out to a 6mb file. I did a 1200dpi test and was a whoping 20mb! Now I can burn these to disc if space ever becomes an issue, though I currently have 20gb free.

Now since this is like capturing video where you can never get better quality than the original, what should be my target? Whats the trade off between compression and quality?

Also, should I save in jpg at full quality or another format and bite the bullet and have larger file sizes?

Suggestions are welcome I can save in .tif, .jpg, .bmp, .pct, .pbm, .pcx, .png, .raw, .tga, .xbm, and a few others I'm sure I missed.

It's a five or six year old Primascan scanner (colorado 2400p).

Thanks for any tips.

[Poppa_Meth]

I'd say max 600. I usually use 300 and have very good quality as I print at 300 as well. But if you want to be really safe use 600. 1200 is major overkill IMO. I would not suggest JPG. The uncompressed formats are best for saving, but if you want to save some space you could use something like PNG, which will give good compression without the quality loss of JPG.

[yoda313]

Thanks poppa meth I'll try out png. I kind of figured 600 would be a good range.

[stiltman]

I scan all my picts at 1200 and save them as psd or tif.

600 and 1200 make a difference if you're goona blow them up or if you're going to take them to a photo store for printing. I take all mine to Sams club because they can print them for less than I can. Plus they are water proof too

[yoda313]

So maybe 1200 for family group shots and big scenes???

Is 600 just fine if you plan on reprinting at 4x6 in the future???

Again these are backups in case something happens to the originals. Thanks for the input.

[thecoalman]

Is 600 just fine if you plan on reprinting at 4x6 in the future???

Anything over 600 printed at the same size would be imperceptible to the human eye. If you use 1200 or higher for pictures you may want to blow up in the future make sure your scanner can effectively scan that high. Some can be set above what they are capable of scanning. Your not producing more detail, just a larger file just as if you resized larger in an image application.

I know many will disagree but but using a very low compression .jpg should be sufficient.

[yoda313]

Thanks coalman and stiltman

[snafu099]

I know many will disagree but but using a very low compression .jpg should be sufficient

From a practical side I would agree. Most dvd players (standalone) will play jpg pictures in a slide show manner, this allows easy sharing of pictures with others.

I helped my ex to scan 20 yrs of alblums and burn to cd. A cd was then put in each photo alblum. (1 alblum = 1 cd )

We used a file nameing method as follows to easily sort, find or arrange them for latter use. date description camera file#.ext

A NOTE OF CAUTION WHEN IMPORTING STRAIGHT FROM CAMERA:
Most digital carera assign a file number to each pic (name), if the camera settings are not set to continue the # sequence from last pic when memory card is reformated or all pic['s are deleted, then the nameing starts over and when imported MAY overwrite an existing file without a warning. Learned the hard way. Also true when sharing pic's with others.

We use a software program called PieStudio which will auto rename when importing. Since several family members use the same model camera we need to be carefull in naming the files and shareing them.

[Poppa_Meth]

I'll agree that JPG isn't bad at high quality settings and is likely the most versatile compressed format. It just depends on exactly what you want to use it for. PSD is also a great format to save in, if you happen to have Photoshop.

[VegasBud]

Since you're willing to spend the time preserving your family photos, why not do the best job you can, retaining all options for the future? It won't take much longer, or cost much more, and you won't have to do it all over again in the future.

You should scan at the maximum optical resolution you scanner supports. You definitely want to not go higher (if you must interpolate, current software interpolation is better than letting the scanner do it). I found two web pages, one that said the Primascan Colorado 2400p has 600 dpi optical resolution, the other said it had 1200 dpi optical. Whichever applies to your scanner is the one to use.

As to the file format to store it in, you can use any lossless format. Bmp, tif and png are all good. I use bmp because it can be opened in just about any editing program, but it has no native compression (which makes it the biggest file size). Tif has a lossless setting that uses LZW compression. Png's lossless compression is based on "inflate/deflate" (Zlib format). Either tif or png would let you put more files on each cd/dvd.

The reason I wouldn't recommend jpeg format for archiving images, regardless of the quality setting, is that it is always lossy. Once an image is saved in that format, it is never quite the same as the original. Given the current prices for cd/dvd blanks, why not save your work at the best quality you can?

[yoda313]

you can use any lossless format. Bmp, tif and png are all good. I use bmp because it can be opened in just about any editing program,

Good point. I'm very familiar with bmp over the years and is pretty universal for any program.

I found two web pages, one that said the Primascan Colorado 2400p has 600 dpi optical resolution, the other said it had 1200 dpi optical. Whichever applies to your scanner is the one to use.

Mine has a slider option that does go up to 1200dpi and I've used it. So I think I'll take coalmans suggestion and use 600 for standard shots and 1200 for large portrait shots or special occassions that I may want to blow up later.

Now all I have to do is start gathering the pictures I want to scan. That could take a few weeks or months

Thanks for all the advice.

[thecoalman]

Mine has a slider option that does go up to 1200dpi and I've used it.

Just because the slider goes to 1200 doesn't mean it gathers 1200, as I mentioned above it may just be resizing it from it's maximum to 1200. Check the specs.

[yoda313]

Mine has a slider option that does go up to 1200dpi and I've used it.

Just because the slider goes to 1200 doesn't mean it gathers 1200, as I mentioned above it may just be resizing it from it's maximum to 1200. Check the specs.

Ok here it is:



Looks like its really 1200 to me

[thecoalman]

Your missing the point. For arguments sake let's say these two images are both 1200dpi.

This is how it would look if it was scanned from a scanner that was capable of scanning at 1200DPI:


This is how it would look if it was scanned at 1200dpi on a machine only capable of 600dpi.



Check your specs, the highest you should scan is whatever it is effective too. Scanning higher only creates a larger, softer image. The file size will be larger too. You can accomplish the same thing with software at a later date if you need too.