Scanning in film camera photo lab prints?

I realize this might be a bit off topic but I hope someone can confirm this.

I had asked my all in one tech support for my lexmark machine what
resolution I should scan photos that were taken with a film camera/developed
at a local photo lab etc so that I may print those scanned images out in
sizes up to 8x10. He said I only needed to go as high as 300dpi, anything
higher would make the scanner work really slow and then anything higher
would just be a waste of space on my drive. He said my prints would be
outstanding.

Can anyone confirm this?

Thanks.

In message , Bob Williams
writes


What's In A Name? wrote:
I realize this might be a bit off topic but I hope someone can confirm this.
I had asked my all in one tech support for my lexmark machine what
resolution I should scan photos that were taken with a film
camera/developed at a local photo lab etc so that I may print those
scanned images out in sizes up to 8x10. He said I only needed to go
as high as 300dpi, anything higher would make the scanner work really
slow and then anything higher would just be a waste of space on my
drive. He said my prints would be outstanding.
Can anyone confirm this?
Thanks.
Tech Support is basically correct.
A print from a local photolab only has about 300 pixel/inch of
information. So scanning it at anything higher just gives you a larger
file size but no additional image information. (You can't get something
for nothing).
Keep in mind, however, that if your original print is 4 x 6, the image
quality of an 8 x 10 will suffer somewhat in comparison. But it will
still be pretty good. You MIGHT help yourself a little bit by
resampling the image in Photoshop (Bicubic Interpolation) so your image
will be 8x10 at 300 pixels/inch. This may smooth out pixelation a
little bit.
Bob Williams

I'd disagree absolutely Bob, and I suspect that you haven't had an 8 x
10 printed at a photo lab from a scanned image to say this.

I'd suggest that you:

1. Scan at 300dpi a 5 x 4 print taken from a reasonable 35mm camera's
neg.

2. Repeat (1) at the maximum optical dpi of your scanner.

3. Take (1) and (2) above to your photo lab and get 10 x 8s of each.

4. Compare.

All photo labs resample the supplied image, but the difference is most
noticeable in the results.

It's exactly the same principle as the difference in lab-printed 10 x 8s
from a 3Mpx digital camera compared with the same from a 5Mpx digital
camera - and the difference is as noticeable as in the different
scanning resolutions.
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

In message , Bob Williams
writes


What's In A Name? wrote:
I realize this might be a bit off topic but I hope someone can confirm this.
I had asked my all in one tech support for my lexmark machine what
resolution I should scan photos that were taken with a film
camera/developed at a local photo lab etc so that I may print those
scanned images out in sizes up to 8x10. He said I only needed to go
as high as 300dpi, anything higher would make the scanner work really
slow and then anything higher would just be a waste of space on my
drive. He said my prints would be outstanding.
Can anyone confirm this?
Thanks.
Tech Support is basically correct.
A print from a local photolab only has about 300 pixel/inch of
information. So scanning it at anything higher just gives you a larger
file size but no additional image information. (You can't get something
for nothing).
Keep in mind, however, that if your original print is 4 x 6, the image
quality of an 8 x 10 will suffer somewhat in comparison. But it will
still be pretty good. You MIGHT help yourself a little bit by
resampling the image in Photoshop (Bicubic Interpolation) so your image
will be 8x10 at 300 pixels/inch. This may smooth out pixelation a
little bit.
Bob Williams

I'd disagree absolutely Bob, and I suspect that you haven't had an 8 x
10 printed at a photo lab from a scanned image to say this.

I'd suggest that you:

1. Scan at 300dpi a 5 x 4 print taken from a reasonable 35mm camera's
neg.

2. Repeat (1) at the maximum optical dpi of your scanner.

3. Take (1) and (2) above to your photo lab and get 10 x 8s of each.

4. Compare.

All photo labs resample the supplied image, but the difference is most
noticeable in the results.

It's exactly the same principle as the difference in lab-printed 10 x 8s
from a 3Mpx digital camera compared with the same from a 5Mpx digital
camera - and the difference is as noticeable as in the different
scanning resolutions.
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

"What's In A Name?" wrote in message
...
I realize this might be a bit off topic but I hope someone can
confirm this.

I had asked my all in one tech support for my lexmark machine what
resolution I should scan photos that were taken with a film
camera/developed
at a local photo lab etc so that I may print those scanned images
out in
sizes up to 8x10. He said I only needed to go as high as 300dpi,
anything
higher would make the scanner work really slow and then anything
higher
would just be a waste of space on my drive. He said my prints would
be
outstanding.


I agree that scanning at 300dpi is probably adequate but, if you
intend to do any resizing or clipping, 600dpi would be better, IMHO. I
don't find that a 600dpi scan of a 4x6 print is particularly slow on
my relatively inexpensive Canon D1250.


--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA

"What's In A Name?" wrote in message
...
I realize this might be a bit off topic but I hope someone can
confirm this.

I had asked my all in one tech support for my lexmark machine what
resolution I should scan photos that were taken with a film
camera/developed
at a local photo lab etc so that I may print those scanned images
out in
sizes up to 8x10. He said I only needed to go as high as 300dpi,
anything
higher would make the scanner work really slow and then anything
higher
would just be a waste of space on my drive. He said my prints would
be
outstanding.


I agree that scanning at 300dpi is probably adequate but, if you
intend to do any resizing or clipping, 600dpi would be better, IMHO. I
don't find that a 600dpi scan of a 4x6 print is particularly slow on
my relatively inexpensive Canon D1250.


--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA

What's In A Name? wrote:
I realize this might be a bit off topic but I hope someone can
confirm this.

I had asked my all in one tech support for my lexmark machine what
resolution I should scan photos that were taken with a film
camera/developed at a local photo lab etc so that I may print those
scanned images out in sizes up to 8x10. He said I only needed to go
as high as 300dpi, anything higher would make the scanner work really
slow and then anything higher would just be a waste of space on my
drive. He said my prints would be outstanding.

Can anyone confirm this?

Thanks.

I scan 8x10s and larger at 300dpi, smaller photos at 600 dpi. At those
specifications they make decent 8x10 prints, and (important to me, if
not to others) the transition areas are wider, making it easier (for me,
if not for others) to apply more accurately what corrections I make, and
distribute small errors over larger areas, reducing or eliminating the
abruptness of manipulations at final size.

--
Frank ess

What's In A Name? wrote:
I realize this might be a bit off topic but I hope someone can
confirm this.

I had asked my all in one tech support for my lexmark machine what
resolution I should scan photos that were taken with a film
camera/developed at a local photo lab etc so that I may print those
scanned images out in sizes up to 8x10. He said I only needed to go
as high as 300dpi, anything higher would make the scanner work really
slow and then anything higher would just be a waste of space on my
drive. He said my prints would be outstanding.

Can anyone confirm this?

Thanks.

I scan 8x10s and larger at 300dpi, smaller photos at 600 dpi. At those
specifications they make decent 8x10 prints, and (important to me, if
not to others) the transition areas are wider, making it easier (for me,
if not for others) to apply more accurately what corrections I make, and
distribute small errors over larger areas, reducing or eliminating the
abruptness of manipulations at final size.

--
Frank ess

James Silverton wrote:


I agree that scanning at 300dpi is probably adequate but, if you
intend to do any resizing or clipping, 600dpi would be better, IMHO. I
don't find that a 600dpi scan of a 4x6 print is particularly slow on
my relatively inexpensive Canon D1250.


This time factor may depend more on the level of urgency for another
beer run, wouldn't it? OTOH, a slow scan rate may help that situation a
great deal.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

James Silverton wrote:


I agree that scanning at 300dpi is probably adequate but, if you
intend to do any resizing or clipping, 600dpi would be better, IMHO. I
don't find that a 600dpi scan of a 4x6 print is particularly slow on
my relatively inexpensive Canon D1250.


This time factor may depend more on the level of urgency for another
beer run, wouldn't it? OTOH, a slow scan rate may help that situation a
great deal.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

James Silverton wrote:


I agree that scanning at 300dpi is probably adequate but, if you
intend to do any resizing or clipping, 600dpi would be better, IMHO. I
don't find that a 600dpi scan of a 4x6 print is particularly slow on
my relatively inexpensive Canon D1250.


This time factor may depend more on the level of urgency for another
beer run, wouldn't it? OTOH, a slow scan rate may help that situation a
great deal.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur