Advice sought on post-scan resizing

[bwcolor]

I always downsize my V-750 images in PS. I never downsize my 35mm when using the 9000ED. I'll usually downsize MF on the 9000ED. My largest print is 13x18 and I suppose that I've not the same critical eye as others above. For example, my downsized 6x7 16 bit TIFFs are usually around 47-48MB (23-24Mpix).

 

[mgermana]

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).

Pardon my ignorance, but could you explain the advantages of and process for doing this?

 

[j j]

The advice from Chris and others is good. But it's not what I do so I'm going to explain further.

I do not want to print larger than a sheet of A3 (and even then I like a white border). I do not make or want or even like huge prints from film. If I were asked to make a monster print I would get a lab to make a drum scan and it would be far better quality than my home scans.

The idea of scanning everything in a much larger size than I need "just in case" when I have a negative/slide stored is just clutter for me. If I change my mind I have scans that are easily large enough to check each photo and decide whether it will take such a large size increase.

I do not sell my prints so I am my own boss and do not need to cater for the whims of clients.

I use 35mm. If I wanted larger prints I would use a larger format. I apply the same logic to my scanning.

 

[VF101]

I'm not printing big formats, so big files are no need for me. Should I need a bigger file one day, I'll rescan the negative. I will have more experience with scanning then (maybe I have a better scanner, too), so my new scans will be better than today. So for me I get no advantage from storing big files. Okay, well, I even store big files: my scanner gives me about 1100 dpi optical resolution, but my files have 2400 dpi.

 

[thereabouts]

I scan to the full resolution and then reduce by 50% (the full resolution is somewhat unsharp and reducing a scan - if done properly - can increase the sharpness, in my experience). Partially because this was the advice I got from someone, but also from reading links such as this and running a couple of experiments for myself.

Obviously, this is all unique to my particular workflow.

If I ever want to exhibit an image then I would send it out for a drum, or other high-end, scan.

 

[philipus]

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!

Umm, given the highlighted text, why scan max resolution? If needed for a large print, you can always re-scan the negative. Sure, storage space is cheap these days but if one doesn't need the image data and one's system doesn't handle the large files, then why push it?

Try various resolutions in Vuescan and see what image sizes you get. These days I scan at 2000 dpi which gives 40MB files on my Coolscan. That's workable on my system and gives me flexibility in terms of use of the image. Previously I used 1333 dpi which gave something like 17-20MB TIFFs and that was perfectly adequate for most uses. It's about finding a good balance between image information and the use for which one scans.

Cheers
Philip