dano
New Forum Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by dano on Nov 21, 2021 0:50:05 GMT
Obviously scanning my 8x10 image at 1200dpi was too much. I wasn't able to export the image out of PSE as a jpeg after minor edits. My other scan choices are 300, 400, or 600dpi. What do you guys use when scanning old photos that you want to import into PSE and export as jpegs?? Thanks again for the help.
|
|
caspa
Junior Forum Member
Posts: 121
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by caspa on Nov 21, 2021 1:24:16 GMT
Obviously scanning my 8x10 image at 1200dpi was too much. I wasn't able to export the image out of PSE as a jpeg after minor edits. My other scan choices are 300, 400, or 600dpi. What do you guys use when scanning old photos that you want to import into PSE and export as jpegs?? Thanks again for the help. But within the PSE Editor you should've been able to resample your edited image down to a more user-friendly size and then Save-As out of PSE, could you not? Regarding scanning images, this is what I basically do - 1. My Epson inkjet printer's native print resolution is 360ppi or 720ppi depending on the print quality setting I choose. Canon, HP and most other printers have a native print resolution of 300ppi/600ppi. 2. I think about the largest print size I am ever likely to make from the scan. Therefore the physical dimensions of the print I am to scan is taken into account when I set a scanning resolution. 3. For example, say I have a 6in x 4in print I need to scan. 4. Let's say I am not likely to make a print larger than A4 size. To make an A4 print at 360ppi (see point 1) I need an image with dimensions 4209px x 2976px. 5. So I would determine the scan resolution as follows: 4209px/6in ~ 702ppi and 2976px/4in ~ 744ppi. 6. I would then set the scan resolution to 800ppi or the next higher setting available. |
|
|
|
Post by cats4jan on Nov 21, 2021 1:52:16 GMT
Scrapbooking recommended resolution is 300 pixels per inch. I have had books printed of my scrapbook pages and 300 pixels per inch is plenty to get a very good quality print.
Yes, you can push it a bit if you are worried, but at some point it becomes overkill and pretty silly.
Even if you want a poster, you view posters from a distance, so you don't even need 300 pixels per inch. Sure if you go up to the poster and stare at it from a foot away, you may think it's not as clear as it should be, but reality is - you just don't do that.
Just like huge megapixel cameras - at some point all those pixels becomes overkill.
BTW - I want to encourage people to think in pixel size instead of resolution. Pixel size, divided by 300 - will tell you what size good quality print you will get from your project/photo.
And, yes I realize, I am describing resolution - but people get so confused when they come upon settings where there is pixel size and resolution -- if you just look at the pixel length and the pixel width and mentally divide each by 300 - the optimum print size will be evident. Forget everything else.
|
|
caspa
Junior Forum Member
Posts: 121
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by caspa on Nov 21, 2021 2:21:36 GMT
... Just like huge megapixel cameras - at some point all those pixels becomes overkill.... There are pros and cons for both low and high pixel count cameras. A huge advantage of high pixel count cameras for me is that they they allow much more flexibility for cropping because you will have a larger amount of pixels left in the image after the crop resulting in more ppi and a better quality print. If the purposes of someone's images is mainly for online display then a 20MP (absolute maximum) camera is all you need. But if you want to print large posters or high quality stitched panoramas then I would not use less than a ~32MP camera. |
|
