swmlon
Established
I have my Minolta 5400, and though it's a little temperamental, as I have described here, I have managed to get some good scans from it. But I've followed all the guides online which recommend scanning and saving as TIFFs. But, is there any point to this if I am going to be scanning to post on this site and Flickr and anything I really like I am going to print myself (when I eventually get an enlarger).
For those that have scanned for the web, could you please give me advice on settings for scans to post online. Is it better to scan as TIFF then make edits before saving as a JPEG. And is using the full 5400dpi overkill when 2700dpi might be better?
Thanks
For those that have scanned for the web, could you please give me advice on settings for scans to post online. Is it better to scan as TIFF then make edits before saving as a JPEG. And is using the full 5400dpi overkill when 2700dpi might be better?
Thanks
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Scan to 16 bit tiff, then post-production as you wish. Save as jpg, modest dimensions, with profile as SRGB.
If I'm going to go to all the work of getting a reasonable scan, I want the scan to be high resolution (4000 ppi on Nikon Coolscan). Then I do PP and save an archival file copy. Finally, I save a reduced resolution copy for use on web, email, 4x6 print, or etc. Lightroom makes all this easy, Photoshop gives you infinite capabilities for adjustments to the image.
Hope this is helpful.
If I'm going to go to all the work of getting a reasonable scan, I want the scan to be high resolution (4000 ppi on Nikon Coolscan). Then I do PP and save an archival file copy. Finally, I save a reduced resolution copy for use on web, email, 4x6 print, or etc. Lightroom makes all this easy, Photoshop gives you infinite capabilities for adjustments to the image.
Hope this is helpful.
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
From my very limited experience with RFF, JPEGs work well and your maximum file size is 2 megs.So if you're posting directly to this site,the image can't be larger than 2 megs or it won't accept it.I hope many more experienced people on this form can certainly improve upon what little I've discovered.
Regards,Peter
Regards,Peter
wblynch
Well-known
Scan the best and highest you can and you never have to go back.
Scanning can take a lot of work and time. I have scanned old film that is in such bad shape it probably wouldn't survive another attempt.
Try to get a 'golden copy' when you can.
Scanning can take a lot of work and time. I have scanned old film that is in such bad shape it probably wouldn't survive another attempt.
Try to get a 'golden copy' when you can.
edftwin
Street Wanderer
I scan at 2400 dpi and save as TIFF then do a little adjustment, resize to 1280pix and save as JPEG. This has been satisfying me so far.
You can see my work at my tumblr...
You can see my work at my tumblr...
damien.murphy
Damien
If scanning with a flatbed, scanning several strips at a time at a lower dpi, treating them like contacts, and then only going back to scan at a higher dpi for the keepers can help speed things up a lot. Doing the same with a dedicated negative scanner like the 5400 would not be as beneficial I think, and better to scan your negatives at the final resolution you plan on using them at. Before making a decision as the dpi, it would be worth scanning your negatives at a range of dpi's, and seeing where the happy medium for you is in terms of quality and times spent scanning, as higher dpi's will take longer and often may not be giving you much (if anything) extra.
damien.murphy
Damien
Would add to the above, that I would be of the preference to save your master scans as Tiffs, and then downsize them to jpegs for web purposes from those masters. 16 bit Tiffs would be the way I would go, if I had a lot of editing like tone curve/ levels adjustments I needed to do to each. If getting scans I was happy with straight from the scanner though, didn't plan to do a lot of sizeable edits, and was happy with 8 bits, I would probably plump for 8 bit jpegs over 8 bit Tiffs, sheerly for size reasons.
EDIT: would also add, if just using said scans for contact/ web purposes, a good flatbed may save you a lot of time over doing the same scans with a dedicated negative scanner. That said, there are dust issues you have to deal with a flatbed, and generally the scans are softer. For contacts, this is something I can live with, and for the web, you probably won't notice it overly, if using something like 800- 1000 pixel wide jpegs anyway, I would say though.
EDIT: would also add, if just using said scans for contact/ web purposes, a good flatbed may save you a lot of time over doing the same scans with a dedicated negative scanner. That said, there are dust issues you have to deal with a flatbed, and generally the scans are softer. For contacts, this is something I can live with, and for the web, you probably won't notice it overly, if using something like 800- 1000 pixel wide jpegs anyway, I would say though.
dct
perpetual amateur
I changed my workflow (for analog processing) already 2011 and now I get from the lab always the best resolution JPEGs I can afford, which are my "digital originals" to start off post processing. Of course, for forum posts I use a very reduced version (800px on the long side) with a 70 % JPEG compression. This stops also issues like not wrapping text postings or painful scrolling over big pictures on smaller displays.