While waiting for my $3000 Digital

rsn48 Apr 13, 2001

  1. rsn48

    rsn48 TrainBoard Member

    2,263
    1
    43
    Okay, so I am slowly being converted here, but until santa comes with a very big sack, how good is scanning images from pics, then putting on the net? I know diddly squat about scanners as well!
     
  2. Gats

    Gats TrainBoard Member

    4,122
    23
    59
    Scanning works fine for net use, and if the original print is good enough, you can do a decent enlargement from a scan print on a printer.
    I found glossy prints best to scan as matt-finish prints tend to be a little blurry due to the rough surface.
    Normal scanning would use the 150dpi setting which will give you an image the same size as the original. You can save in your format of choice (say .jpg or .gif) but if you wish to modify the image, I would suggest a non-compression format, such as .tif, then save in the other when finished.

    Gary.
     
  3. chessie

    chessie TrainBoard Supporter

    6,183
    6
    79
    I confess that I have not done enough with my scanner to make good recommendations. Here's an image that I scanned from my 4x6 color print:
    [​IMG]

    I definately need to play with the settings on the scanner, as some of my scans are a little fuzzy (I think it is scanning too high DPI, since the finished image is ~8x12 or some other large size :eek: )

    Harold
     
  4. Rob Richardson

    Rob Richardson E-Mail Bounces

    3
    0
    16
    Greetings!

    To see samples of photos scanned from 4x6 prints, visit my site: http://clevelrails.freewebsites.com. Most of these images were scanned into Microsoft Image Composer, then dynamic range and contrast were adjusted, and then the Sharpen effect was applied.

    I just got a Canon D660U flatbed scanner, which can scan slides and negatives as well as prints. I've only tried scanning one print from it so far, but installation was very easy and the print looked very good. [​IMG]

    Rob
     
  5. Rob Richardson

    Rob Richardson E-Mail Bounces

    3
    0
    16
  6. rsn48

    rsn48 TrainBoard Member

    2,263
    1
    43
    Rob,
    On your site, are those all slides that were scanned in? Went to the first one you posted and of course it didn't work. Rather than repost a correction, you can use the edit button, and make corrections to your original post, even after it is in the forum.
     
  7. Alan

    Alan Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    10,798
    460
    127
    All my rail prints are scanned from prints. I set my scanner to 150dpi, then use Paint Shop Pro to resize slightly and reduce file size to about 70-80 k.
     
  8. Paul Templar

    Paul Templar Passed away November 23, 2008 In Memoriam

    637
    3
    23
    My photo's are scanned in at 300 dpi and saved as a BMP first, then resized to what ever I need. played around with contrast/color/sharpness/ then saved as a jpeg. http://www.badger-creek.co.uk

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Kevin Stevens

    Kevin Stevens TrainBoard Supporter

    421
    0
    20
    As you can see, there is a multitude of choices for scanning photos for web site posting. The best thing is that most of them will work well with a little practice. Here is what I use:

    I have two scanners: A flatbed scanner for scanning prints and a dedicated film scanner for slides. All of my equipment is on the low-cost end, including my camera (Canon EOS Rebel 2000).

    First, the flatbed--It is a Microtek X6 scanner capable of 36-bit color and 1200 dpi. The scanner uses Ulead's PhotoImpact as its imaging software, and is avauilable in both parallel and USB versions. Current prices range from US$90-US$125. I use this scanner to scan 4x6 prints. Originals scanned at 300dpi in .tif format, later rescaled as .jpg at roughly 800x600 final size making an image of 75-150k. Here is a sample of a photo scanned on the Microtek X6.
    [​IMG]

    Next, the film scanner. I have an Acer ScanWit 2720s film scanner. It is capable of 32-bit color at 2720dpi. It comes with Adobe Photoshop 5.0LE as its imaging software. It is available for around US$350-US$500, however I purchased mine on Ebay for $295 (brand new, delivered from Acer). I use this to scan 35mm slides. While it is also capable of scanning color print negatives, I am more comfortable scanning prints on the flatbed scanner. I scan the slides in .psd (photoshop exclusive) format, and rescale the photo to roughly 800x600 final size before saving in .jpg format. Produces a final image of 75-175k. Here is a sample photo scanned on the Acer scanner.
    [​IMG]

    As noted by another post, always keep an original copy of your photo in one of the uncompressed formats (.tif, .bmp, .psd, etc...) as repeated manipulation of a .jpg image will cause the file to lose integrity causing blemishes and fuzziness. Hope this helps...for more photos of mine, visit my website at the link below.

    [ 16 April 2001: Message edited by: Kevin Stevens ]
     
  10. Hytec

    Hytec TrainBoard Member

    13,965
    6,903
    183
    Kevin, the image from the Acer scanner appears to have either over-saturated colors or too much contrast. Does the original slide look like the posted image or did the scanner cause this?

    Thanks, Hank

    P.S. those are great photos, especially the "rolling pipeline"! (I think "rolling pipeline" was a trademark of the New York Central or the Pennsy back 70-80 years ago?)

    [ 17 April 2001: Message edited by: Hank Coolidge ]
     
  11. Kevin Stevens

    Kevin Stevens TrainBoard Supporter

    421
    0
    20
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hank Coolidge:
    Kevin, the image from the Acer scanner appears to have either over-saturated colors or too much contrast. Does the original slide look like the posted image or did the scanner cause this?

    Thanks, Hank
    [ 17 April 2001: Message edited by: Hank Coolidge ]
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Yes, the photo is high saturation/contrast, but the scan is a fairly good representation of the original image. The photo was taken in the evening hours, with low sunlight directly behind the camera. It has been my experience that this type of light creates that type of saturation, and was actually what I was looking for in the photograph. The contrast gives it a 3D quality, while the saturation makes the train's cars stand out in front of the mountains in the background. Also, it was taken with a 300mm lens which may have exaggerated the contrast of the photo even more. The great thing about the scan is that the objects in the photo stand out just like on the original slide, from the train on the foreground to the mountains in the background. This is a pure product of the higher resolution of the original scan. Had this image been scanned at a lower resolution, the shadowy areas would have been "noisy" (scanning term for poor dark color representation).

    To make a long story short, this is the type of image that needs a dedicated slide scanner to produce a presentable scan. Slides with pure lighting such as textbook roster shots or images that are slightly overexposed can be cleanly scanned using a flatbed scanner. Images with a more "artsy" look, or with lots of contrast or underexposure lose their effect when scanned at lower resolution, due to limitations in the ability of the scanner to represent dark areas of the photo correctly.

    Also, it is possible to overdo the post-processing work on a photo. This is a sin that I am guilty of more ofter than not (maybe even with this photo). I have found that the best way to learn is through the trial-and-error process, and don't be afraid of making too many errors. If you don't make them, you aren't trying hard enough [​IMG]

    I apologize for the long explanation, but I felt that I needed to explain the reasons for the faults in the image. ;)

    P.S. Here is a link that I highly recommend for learning how to scan images:

    www.scantips.com
    This site is a must visit for anyone who has learned how to use their scanner, but is looking for a little more performance from their equipment. I am still learning, and this site is the source of 90% of my knowlege (also where I found out about the Acer scanner).

    [ 17 April 2001: Message edited by: Kevin Stevens ]
     

Share This Page