mgermana
Established
Using Vuescan, I scan negatives at maximum resolution on my Plustek OpticFilm 8200i. I then import the resulting .dng file into Lightroom and do my post-processing there. Problem is, the files are obscenely large (~130 megabytes each), so I would like to resize them to something more manageable. I assume I need to export and then re-import each image into Lightroom, but I'm not sure what size would be best (I can't ever see myself printing bigger than 11X14, though).
How and when do you resize images after scanning, and how should I go about it using Lightroom only? (I don't have PS anymore.)
Thanks in advance for your replies!
How and when do you resize images after scanning, and how should I go about it using Lightroom only? (I don't have PS anymore.)
Thanks in advance for your replies!
thegman
Veteran
4000 pixels across will give you about 300 dpi if your print in 14 inches across.
brbo
Well-known
You can use Lightroom Export function to do resizing for you. You can export it to your existing Lightroom catalog at the desired size and delete the original afterwards.
VF101
Established
I let my scanner software save the images as 16bit (or 48bit for color) TIFs. Then resize them with the mogrify command (you need to install ImageMagick) on the command line. Sounds more complicated than it really is. So I get moderately sized images before importing them into iPhoto and the 16bit TIFs ensure the images contain all the information the scanner saw. (I'm using the Epson software so there even is no DNG option for me.)
j j
Well-known
I make full size scans with my Minolta 5400 and set Vuescan to resize for me on output. I get manageable 10MP files. The only risk is that should I ever need to print a huge picture I would need to rescan.
Which mogrify option(s) are you using for this?
mgermana
Established
OK, a 142MB .dng file exported as a lossless .tif 4000 pixels on the long edge @ 300ppi gives me a 64MB file. Still a bit big, but not completely unruly...
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
My advice is simple: Don't.
Scan everything at full resolution and keep the full resolution through all your post processing, and keep the finished fullres file as an archive. If you size it down, you'll later regret throwing away the extra resolution if you ever need to make a large print. Been there, done that...had to rescan a lot of stuff. Your time is more valuable than hard drive space.
Scan everything at full resolution and keep the full resolution through all your post processing, and keep the finished fullres file as an archive. If you size it down, you'll later regret throwing away the extra resolution if you ever need to make a large print. Been there, done that...had to rescan a lot of stuff. Your time is more valuable than hard drive space.
VF101
Established
Just the resize option. My flatbed scanner has to scan with a higher resolution than it can optically produce. So I scan with 4800 dpi and resize the file down to 2400 dpi. So, the file size is reduced by three quarters. And I still have way more pixels in the file than the scanner really sees. (Did I yet say, that I have a very cheap scanner?)
R
rpsawin
Guest
Yep...and disk space is vey inexpensive....good advice, Chris.
mgermana
Established
I'm less concerned about the storage space and more annoyed about the way Lightroom hangs when working with such large files, even on my 2011 MacBook Pro. Perhaps it's because I'm still using v 2.7. Time to upgrade, maybe?
redisburning
Well-known
agree with Chris.
I also downsize with a multi-step script. You should not be downsizing from full rez to output size unless your output size is exactly 1/4 the total resolution (1/2 on each side).
I also downsize with a multi-step script. You should not be downsizing from full rez to output size unless your output size is exactly 1/4 the total resolution (1/2 on each side).
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
That's your problem. Lightroom 2 was so slow on my Mac Pro as to be unusable. Lightroom 4 is what I use now and it is pretty fast. If you're using it for processing RAW files from a digital camera in addition to your film work, Adobe greatly improved the image quality you get from RAW in lightroom with the later versions.
kzphoto
Well-known
I paid for 4 years of college for the same advice. Listen to Chris, he's damned smart about this type of thing.
anerjee
Well-known
I feel that a film like tri-x in 35mm does not resolve more than 10MP at most, so scanning with 5400 ppi maybe overkill. I usually scan at 5400 and ask Vuescan to downsize to 2700 ppi, which gives me an 11MP 16-bit image. The downsampling helps with luminance noise as well.
I'm not sure here -- do I really need to store a 45MP image when the underlying data is only 10MP? Would it allow me to print bigger?
Pioneer
Veteran
Everyone seems to have worked out a method that fits their needs. My own workflow certainly will not work for everyone but it has worked for me for quite awhile. I typically scan so that I have an image that would print to 4" x 6" at 300 ppi but no more. I scan all my negatives this way. Time wise it is pretty quick to scan yet I have a decent digital image that I can print as thumbnails in a contact sheet or up to 8x10 if I want to see how it works out. Meanwhile it doesn't occupy unreasonably large amounts of digital storage space. If I decide to produce a print then I retrieve that negative from my files and scan it at a much higher resolution. This is the image I will work with to produce my work prints and final print. For me, the negative is the archive, not the digital file.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
The image will look sharper with the larger file in large prints. Even though the image itself doesn't have that much detail, sizing it down to a smaller size then resizing it back up for a large print will cause the grain to look mushy, while the fullres file would have sharp grain.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Thanks, kzphoto
I actually paid for my fine arts degree and DIDN'T get that advice! I graduated from college right before digital photography and computerized graphic design took over the world, so I had to teach myself all of this!
michaelwj
----------------
Hi, I've recently gone through this, changed from LR2 to LR5, while faster, its not "heaps" faster. The brush on the clone and heal are the main reasons for healing scratches/dust etc, well worth the upgrade.
Back on topic though, I scan at full res as Chris suggests (oversampling is always better, regardless of the perceived 'resolution' in the neg), but optimized LR a little better to make up the difference, set preview to medium rather than large, set the preview size a little smaller. If you google LR optimization, you'll find heaps of ideas. The short of it is, I have big files when/if I need them, but they load fast for viewing, and it only slows down when I do 1:1 editing, which I usually do slowly anyway. I'm on an 09 imac btw.
The other way to do it would be to just scan at a lower res, it'll scan faster too, and no messy resizing. You'll kick yourself if you have to rescan though.
Michael
Back on topic though, I scan at full res as Chris suggests (oversampling is always better, regardless of the perceived 'resolution' in the neg), but optimized LR a little better to make up the difference, set preview to medium rather than large, set the preview size a little smaller. If you google LR optimization, you'll find heaps of ideas. The short of it is, I have big files when/if I need them, but they load fast for viewing, and it only slows down when I do 1:1 editing, which I usually do slowly anyway. I'm on an 09 imac btw.
The other way to do it would be to just scan at a lower res, it'll scan faster too, and no messy resizing. You'll kick yourself if you have to rescan though.
Michael
Last edited:
michaelwj
----------------
This is a very tricky question, but the answer is "YES" and "the underlying data is NOT 10MP"
If Tri-X for example has a grain size equal to a 10MP sensor pixel size, then a 10MP scan will put 1 pixel per grain bit (what is an individual grain item called?) The grain will then be squares, but its not, its randomly sized and shaped. The more pixels you put on each piece of grain, the more accurately you render the 'randomness' of the grain, and thus emulate what is really in the file. In reality, film is not equal to a XX MP file due to the random size and shape of the grain. To perfectly recreate it, it would need to be infinite MP, essentially, we're making circles, but we only have squares, the more squares we have, the more convincing our circle becomes. One square does not make a good circle, 9 is better (3 x 3), 81 is better still (9 x 9) and forever we go.
This is all a bit off topic though!