Need advice on how to save scanned photos

[TMiller]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I’m scanning old snapshots for CD archiving with the intention of later
printing- and maybe some editing. The output type on my scanner is
..jpg, and scanned resolution of 300. I’ve been scanning a couple to a
few pictures at a time, then copy and paste them into new individual
..jpg’s.
I remember reading somewhere that each time a .jpg is opened and edited
it loses some quality. Is this quality negligible, or would I be better
off saving it in a non-compressed format from my scanner and then
separate them into the smaller .jpg’s? (saving at least one open and
edit session)

Also, the hp scanning software that came with my scanner is sadly
lacking. Any recommendations for new scanning software?


Thanks for any and all suggestions,
Terry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

TMiller <TMiller@j7nospx4amplease.net> writes:

> I’m scanning old snapshots for CD archiving with the intention of
> later printing- and maybe some editing. The output type on my scanner
> is .jpg, and scanned resolution of 300. I’ve been scanning a couple
> to a few pictures at a time, then copy and paste them into new
> individual .jpg’s.

Um, the resolution you just gave doesn't *mean* anything. A digital
image has no dimensions, so resoluation has no referent. What pixel
dimensions are you scanning at?

> I remember reading somewhere that each time a .jpg is opened and
> edited it loses some quality. Is this quality negligible, or would I
> be better off saving it in a non-compressed format from my scanner and
> then separate them into the smaller .jpg’s? (saving at least one open
> and edit session)

Actually, it's each time the jpeg is *compressed* (which means each
time it's *saved*) that there's some loss. I never edit a jpeg if I
can help it (except for the degenerate case of a camera-original when
the camera stores in jpeg); so I never store the master copy of
anything I've scanned as a jpeg. I always use tiff or PSD (photoshop
proprietary, hence not ideally desirable; but I already own a copy of
photoshop).

> Also, the hp scanning software that came with my scanner is sadly
> lacking. Any recommendations for new scanning software?

Never tried any third-party scanner software, so no idea what's good.
If Vue-scan supports your scanner, that'd be one a lot of other people
have liked. But really, you need so little from flatbed scanner
software.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http/www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http/noguns-nomoney.com/> <http/www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http/dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http/www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http/dragaera.info/>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The loss can be considerable. If your scanner can only save as JPG, and most
will give you other choices, then scan it and convert to either TIF or the
default for your editing software. The default will often save features that
TIF will not...like layers if they are supported. After your editing if you
need a JPG convert again. That is just one re-save and is the best that you
can do. Save the TIF as your "negative" in case you want to edit further. If
you can scan at more than 300 you will be happier....if you scan a 4x5 at
300 dpi and you want an 8x10 then your print will be only 75 DPI.

"TMiller" <TMiller@j7nospx4amplease.net> wrote in message
newsL7Yd.158$hg.135@news01.roc.ny...
> I’m scanning old snapshots for CD archiving with the intention of later
> printing- and maybe some editing. The output type on my scanner is
> .jpg, and scanned resolution of 300. I’ve been scanning a couple to a
> few pictures at a time, then copy and paste them into new individual
> .jpg’s.
> I remember reading somewhere that each time a .jpg is opened and edited
> it loses some quality. Is this quality negligible, or would I be better
> off saving it in a non-compressed format from my scanner and then
> separate them into the smaller .jpg’s? (saving at least one open and
> edit session)
>
> Also, the hp scanning software that came with my scanner is sadly
> lacking. Any recommendations for new scanning software?
>
>
> Thanks for any and all suggestions,
> Terry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

[Scan at 300DPI]

> Um, the resolution you just gave doesn't *mean* anything.

Actually it does. We've seen so many "A digital image has no
resolution" arguments, that we tend to forget what DPI really is.

The original in this case is not digital, it's a physical image on
paper. To say that it was scanned at 300DPI is a very valid and usable
information, as we know that the physical media has a limit as to how
much information we can get from it.

Now, the question is whether TMiller scans negatives, dias or paper
copies. Given the 300DPI and his basic question (no offence TMiller),
I would say it's paper copies. In that case, 300DPI is fine for color,
600DPI might be more fitting if B/W.

http/www.scantips.com/basics08.html

> A digital image has no dimensions, so resoluation has no referent.
> What pixel dimensions are you scanning at?

Quite the opposite. He's scanning for archiving and thus wants to
preserve what he can. The pixel dimension is in this case useless,
since we need to know the papersize in order to judge if the pixel size
was well chosen. If we get both (pixel & physical size), then weøre
just reinventing DPI.
--
Toke Eskildsen - http/ekot.dk/

 

[Bob]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

TMiller wrote:
> I’m scanning old snapshots for CD archiving with the intention of later
> printing- and maybe some editing.

I'd say print some out (take the CD to Wal-Mart, Wallgreens, or some
other place that makes chemical prints) and see if you like the quality.
If you're happy with what you get, then there is no reason to change.

If the compression is fairly modest, then you probably won't be able to
see the loss involved with the jpg. 300 dpi is probably a lot more than
the original prints have.

I don't know how much scanner software would cost, but if you decide to
upgrade, consider that a Microtek scanner costs around $100 and the
software it comes with is good.

Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Toke Eskildsen <darkwing@daimi.au.dk> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> [Scan at 300DPI]
>
>> Um, the resolution you just gave doesn't *mean* anything.
>
> Actually it does. We've seen so many "A digital image has no
> resolution" arguments, that we tend to forget what DPI really is.
>
> The original in this case is not digital, it's a physical image on
> paper. To say that it was scanned at 300DPI is a very valid and usable
> information, as we know that the physical media has a limit as to how
> much information we can get from it.

Except that scanner software gives you another variable that makes
that meaning unreliable. *If* he has the software set to 100% size,
then the 300DPI means something sort-of.

And that having that "DPI" value embedded in digital files has caused
more confusion even than color management, and the smart thing to do
is just learn to ignore it.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http/www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http/noguns-nomoney.com/> <http/www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http/dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http/www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http/dragaera.info/>