 Jeffrey Sarembock |
Printing 13x19 Photos at 300 dpi My objective is to be able to print 13”x19” images at 300dpi. At this time, I want to continue using my 35mm camera equipment. Based on current consumer scanning alternatives at reasonable cost, Costco seems to offer the best deal, and for $0.29 will scan slides at 2,934 x 1,914 pixels at a resolution of 72. Using the image resize option in Photoshop (constrain proportions), this allows for a maximum printed image size of 6.4”x9.8” at 300 dpi, which is only 25% of my desired image size for printing. So my question is, what is the optimal way to digitize my images for printing 13”x19” at 300 dpi, taking into consideration image quality, cost and time? 1. Costco scan and increase image size using Genuine Fractals Thanks.
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
It ain't Costco, J. Look into 4000 ppi film scanners. $1400 is a lotta money, BUT a really good 6 megapixel camera and storage cards to store images that big will cost a LOT more than the scanner. Learning to use Photoshop with this scanner will put you way ahead in digital imaging, skills that you can use elsewhere. If you're not getting the image size and resolution you want from a 4000 ppi scan, in my opinion, you're expecting too much from 35-mm. I don't know what you're shooting, but images shot at full resolution with the latest digital SLR's may give you what you want. You might be able to use your lenses on the digital SLR. Sure, upsampling works on some images, and GF is just an alternative software for upsampling. You might get away with it for SOME images. Get a professional scan on some test images. See what you have when you upsample them. You might like the results.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jeff S. Kennedy |
It's like the old saying - "do you want it good or do you want it cheap?". Costco's not the way to go. If they're scanning for an output of 72dpi it's meant for viewing on a screen. All the genuine fractals in the world won't give you what you want (besides, there's a better way than G.F.). I have a Canon CanoScan FS4000US. It is a 4000ppi scanner and you can get them for under $1K. If I scan a 35mm neg at 4000ppi the image size I get is very close to the dimension you are looking at. I've made 16x20 prints from 35mm with it that were beautiful. If you don't want to invest in a film scanner, check out some quality minilabs (or pro labs) in your area. Most offer high resolution scanning these days. Don't waste your money on Genuine Fractals (sorry if I'm too late). I mentioned there is a better way. Well here it is. Open your image in Photoshop. Click on Image Size. Enter the dimensions you want to get to and make not of the resulting file size. Don't hit OK yet. Under image size change to percent and enter 110. Now hit OK. Continue this process until the file size gets really close to your goal (you can make an action out of it to make it a one button process). Once your close then you can nudge it to the exact dimensions you want and voila! You're there. I've seen side by side comparisons between this and G.F. and it looks better to me (and most everyone else).
|
|
|
|
||
|
Denise Clay |
Jeff, Could you expand on how you obtain the results that GF does? I think I am a little slow this morning or something. It sounds interesting. I usually do not have a problem, since I use a Canon 4000 scanner and/or a S2 for all of my images. But ocassionally I would like to enlarge a tiny section. Thanks
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jeff S. Kennedy |
The method I described is called the 110% method. Basically, you increase the size of your image by only 10% at a time and it produces enlargements superior to GF and it costs you nothing (unless you count the time it takes to do the incremental enlarging). Not sure how to expand on what I said. Is there something about it that is unclear that I can try to make clear?
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||