Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,491   Posts: 1,542,968   Online: 852
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684

    Scanning Resolutions for APUG

    I'm muddling through the process of posting
    photos using a Cannon MP520 AIO. I know the
    scanner does a terrific job because copying
    results are really great.

    For posting purposes what ballpark resolution
    should I think of using? I can go so far as 2400x
    4800 without interpolation. Dan

  2. #2
    Marco B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,983
    Images
    169
    The maximum image size allowed on APUG is just 850x750 pixels, anything bigger will be rejected, so don't bother with any of these high scanning resolutions unless you intend to use them for other purposes as well. In which case you will need to downsize the image to have them accepted by the APUG server...

    A 400 ppi scan of a 35 mm negative should be a good start for APUG, resulting in an about 400x600 pixel image that can easily be uploaded to APUG.

    Marco
    My website

    "The nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true, and it wound up by believing that what it saw a photograph of, was true." - William M. Ivins Jr.

    "I don't know, maybe we should disinvent color, and we could just shoot Black & White." - David Burnett in 1978

    "Analog is chemistry + physics, digital is physics + math, which ones did you like most?"

  3. #3
    chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    983
    For the web, resolution doesn't matter. What matters is the absolute pixel dimensions. So, if you have an image that is (for example) 640 pixels by 500 pixels in size, it doesn't matter if it is at 300 dpi or 72 dpi or anything else. This is because web browsers map each pixel in the image to a pixel on the viewer's screen regardless of the size of the screen or the number of pixels per inch you have encoded in the image.

    So, your question really is, what size should my images be? Make them between 640 and 800 pixels at the longest side of the photo. This will fit on most modern screens. If you go any bigger than 800, the photo will show too big on most people's monitors. If you go smaller than 640, it starts looking too small on most screens.
    Chris Crawford
    Fine Art Photography of Indiana and other places no one else photographs.

    http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

    My Tested Developing Times with the films and developers I use

    Become a fan of my work on Facebook

    Fort Wayne, Indiana

  4. #4
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,264
    Images
    148
    APUG also has a restriction on file size for uploads of 500kb.

    If you shoot panoramic formats (such as 6x17) the 850x750 size is problematic as the images appear too small.

    Ian

  5. #5
    arigram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Crete, Greece
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,474
    Images
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    If you shoot panoramic formats (such as 6x17) the 850x750 size is problematic as the images appear too small.
    I was wondering if the system can be expanded to cater for panoramics, like with a special option for a long horizontal or vertical like maybe 1024 or 1280 and a short side around 300-400 pixels.
    aristotelis grammatikakis
    www.arigram.gr
    Real photographs, created in camera, 100% organic,
    no digital additives and shit




  6. #6
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,264
    Images
    148
    It would be good Ari, they don't work very well as thumbnails or images in the Gallery or Portfolio section.

    Ian

  7. #7
    hoffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,897
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    57
    OK, I'm sure you are going to get plenty of opinions on this, but I will give my 5cents worth as well.

    Display sizes online shouldn't matter whether the photos originally were d*****l or analog, but you can unnecessarily waste bandwidth by posting up images that are too big both as a file size and as a physical size.

    My personal preference has been to post images no bigger then 800px on the longest side at a maximum resolution of 72dpi. Chris is 100% correct. It doesn't matter if an image is 72dpi, or 1kazillion dpi, you will not get any benefit from a file that is greater then 72. If I use Photoshop to resize the images, I save them off as a JPEG with the quality setting at around 9. This should result in an image that is approximately 150-200kb in size.

    For me, personally, anything bigger then that is a waste of bandwidth.

  8. #8
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,275
    Images
    20
    I would recommend scanning at the maximum optical resolution of the scanner, so that you'll have as good a scan as you can get for any purpose you may have, and then downsize to the maximum acceptable size for the gallery.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684

    Still Muddling. Questions ???????

    Monitor? I've noticed that the angle at which I view
    the screen has a marked effect on the brightness
    of the image. If I drop my view point the image
    on the screen becomes darker. Is that normal?

    Screen resolution? My screen has an 85x85 pixel
    resolution. I've been scanning at 75. With that
    disparity can I expect best reproduction on
    the screen?

    Print down? Even with a low view point my scans
    still present a some what 'washed out' apperance.
    Should I print darker for scanning purposes?

    Subject? Do some photos simply not scan well?
    A photo I've been working with is a mass of
    leaves, branches, and other detail. Or is
    it the above mentioned mismatched
    resolution? Dan

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,401
    Images
    89
    As suggested in some of the prievious replies, I scan at a high resolution, and resize in PS down to the target for display. I usually pick 100 dpi which is more or less the top resolution of any monitor, though most are less than that.
    Unless I was making a print that would be specifically used for computer display, I print according to what makes the print look best. For the scan I adjust the scan's brightness and contrast according to what looks good on the monitor. I do this in PS rather than the scan software.
    The display of an LCD monitor changes radically depending on your viewing angle. You should always make adjustments when looking squarely at the monitor, both up and down and from side to side.
    Some photos do scan better than others. Something with a lot of fine detail would be a problem. Fine detail risks getting "pixelated" at monitor resolutions.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin