Scanning Photos

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by matteusclement, Apr 25, 2010.

  1. matteusclement macrumors 65816

    matteusclement

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    victoria
    #1
    I am using adobe acrobat pro 9 to scan old photo to do restoration.
    The scanner I am using does 1200 dpi.
    The default output file is PDF but I have been saving them into lossless TIFF files as well.

    1. Is tiff better than PDF for editting
    2. Am I wasting my time with the extra step of making them a TIFF

    I am editting them in photoshop CS4 for restoration from fading and scratches.
     
  2. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #2
    Pdf is an awful choice for bitmap files - TIFF would be a lot better.
     
  3. matteusclement thread starter macrumors 65816

    matteusclement

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    victoria
    #3
    thanks.
    just out of curiousity, are PDF vector based?
     
  4. Ruahrc macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #4
    Not necessarily. I tend to think of it as pdf being like a word document, where you can imbed bitmapped images, or use vector graphics. The document container does not really define the data within.
     
  5. pdxflint macrumors 68020

    pdxflint

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon coast
    #5
    What scanner are you using? Why don't you just use the scanner software that came with the scanner? You should be able to scan photos into .tiff or .jpg files. I'm not sure what you need Acrobat for when scanning... maybe I need to be enlightened. ;)
     
  6. spice weasel macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2003
    #6
    I agree. Or, better yet, just scan them into Photoshop using the TWAIN driver since you are using it to fix them up anyway. No need to use Acrobat.
     
  7. MisterMe macrumors G4

    MisterMe

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #7
    Yes. This does not mean that PDF can't handle raster (bitmap) images. It does mean that PDF is a poor choice for raster images. MacOS X all the back to NeXTstep used TIFF as its raster image format.
     
  8. flynz4 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #8
    Prints have no where near 1200 dpi of inherent resolution. Scanning at that high of a resolution will do nothing to improve quality, and will just give you a huge file.

    http://www.scantips.com/ is a great reference.

    /Jim
     
  9. MisterMe macrumors G4

    MisterMe

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #9
    Good reference, but you are over interpreting the lessons that it teaches. If all you intend to do is to reprint a scanned image at it current size or smaller, or if you intend to use it only in electronic form, then yes. If you intend to magnify the image in print, then your statement is an overreach. An image scanned at 1200 dpi gives a lot more headroom for magnification than one scanned at 300 dpi. This is particularly an issue with monochrome images as opposed to color.
     
  10. HBOC macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    SLC
    #10
    I remember when i was scanning @ 2900 dpi/16bit. The files were soo huge, like 60MB. A bit overkill, lol.
     
  11. spice weasel macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2003
    #11
    Yeah, but how else could you blow up those dust specks and scratches to poster-size?
     
  12. HBOC macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    SLC
  13. flynz4 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #13
    I do not believe that you are correct. The print simply does not have the inherent information to give you more detail. It is a limitation of the photo paper itself. Scanning at a higher resolution will oversample the image, but it cannot create more detail than is present in the original. From what I have seen... 300dpi is about all there is in a photograph. Even the lunatic fringe generally agree that 400 is overkill from what I have seen.

    It is completely different if you scan a negative which has a lot more information than the print.

    /Jim
     
  14. matteusclement thread starter macrumors 65816

    matteusclement

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    victoria
    #14
    lets remember WHY i am scanning that high

    I am scanning that high because I need all the data I can to RESTORE these photos. Right now I am able to go in and clone spots that allow me to repair other locations. It gives me a larger sample area. Once I have repaired them, then I will print them and there is no such thing as too much data for printing.

    thank you for all your help. I will try to remember to post some results once I am done. Some of these photos are pretty FUBAR tho....
     
  15. Ruahrc macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #15
    I think the kind of print also matters. A high quality fine art print made direct from a large format negative probably has way more than 300ppi in it, as opposed to a photo made from a C47 processing lab which probably tops out at around 300ppi.

    Ruahrc
     

Share This Page