 David J. Allocco |
Scanning Photographs To achieve maximum results/image quality, is it better to scan 8X10 images rather than smaller formats?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Steven Chaitoff |
No, it is not. It may seem better because the picture's larger, but really there is the same amount of information on the picture as there is on a 4x6 or 2x3. All you're doing with an 8x10 or some other enlargement is expanding the size of each little block of color, not adding more of them to the picture. A good scanner is extremely accurate and can hit resolutions small enough to cover very detailed and tiny areas. There is no need to blow the image up for the scanner. In fact, with this in mind, scanning an 8x10 (or any other print for that matter) will give you WORSE image quality. It's kind of like making a picture of a picture, and that never works. Because the enlargement is bound to lose sharpness out of human error and have more apparent grains as well, it is worse quality than the negative. So if you can, scan from the negative (you need a pricey negative scanner) because that's where the raw data is; its tiny size doesn't matter.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||