It was 19/3/04 9:48 am, when planty wrote: > I'm archiving my work and was wondering what kind of scan size that is > needed for 35mm film to capture all the detail/info of the original?
Simon Does capturing more pixels equate to capturing more detail? I thought the scanner's ability to capture detail and dynamic range were the prerequisites... > and if needs be produce another trannie from the file in the future. > Most my work is scanned for one of my stock libraries and they require a > minimum of 100mb files which to me seems to be overkill and I don't want to > waste time scanning and storing that size for no reason. I visited AGE Fotostock the other day and their policy regarding file size and digital capture seems to be the most sensible that I have come across. You can get to it from the photographers > submission link. Here's the home link http://www.agefotostock.com/ Have to say, I found some of their views regarding color space, sharpening and exposure when shooting digitally a bit perplexing. For example, they say "Make sure that digital images are exposed correctly or even better a bit overexposed (1/3) and avoid underexposure as much as you can as they are not as easy to restore." I thought digital cameras were notorious for losing highlight info so you should "underexpose." More precisely, expose the highlights correctly. Shangara Singh. __________________________________________________ :: Photoshop CS Adobe Certified Expert (ACE) :: Photoshop CS Essential Tips && ACE Exam Aids && Glossary :: http://www.photoshopace.com && http://www.examaids.com =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
