on 11/7/03 9:04 pm, S& P Kappel at wrote: > the ICE but the fact that the scanner needs to down sample to 16.. dpi to > give me a file size of 300 dpi for a 5 by roughly 7 inch print and that I > should scan it at full resolution and then downsize or sample it later in > Photoshop.?)
There's a workflow issue here. Getting this right will save you time in the long run. If you are scanning images which are for immediate filing to a client (say a one hour turn round for press) then scan to a specific size, but if you have the time scan to your required image size for archiving and stock. In my case I scan everything to 50mb, edit the image and then save. You then have a finished "master" image which you can copy and then size as appropriate. Don't resize the master image file as you might get distracted and save the edit necessitating a re-scan- I have done this before...often. Nothing worse than scanning and editing the image once to a small files size and then having to re-scan and re-edit for archiving. Grrrr! Setting your scanner to scan to a specific size (in your case 300dpi @ 5 x 7" print size) is a handy thing to do only if you want to save one step in photoshop (ie. adjust "image size"), in reality the crucial issue is how many pixels your scan is generating as this determines the size of image you can print as a specific dpi. William C. from this fine list is a bit fan of scanning in 16 bit and then converting to 8 bit later as appropriate. The theory is to pack your original scan with as much colour info and image detail as possible and then discard that information later if necessary when presenting the final image file. So I guess all I am saying is - scan big and work down to save time in the long run. Bitter experience talking. Andy -- Andy Johnstone Photography Member of the Association of Photographers (UK) =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
