Need advice on how to save scanned photos

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I’m scanning old snapshots for CD archiving with the intention of later
printing- and maybe some editing. The output type on my scanner is
..jpg, and scanned resolution of 300. I’ve been scanning a couple to a
few pictures at a time, then copy and paste them into new individual
..jpg’s.
I remember reading somewhere that each time a .jpg is opened and edited
it loses some quality. Is this quality negligible, or would I be better
off saving it in a non-compressed format from my scanner and then
separate them into the smaller .jpg’s? (saving at least one open and
edit session)

Also, the hp scanning software that came with my scanner is sadly
lacking. Any recommendations for new scanning software?


Thanks for any and all suggestions,
Terry
5 answers Last reply
More about need advice save scanned photos
  1. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    TMiller <TMiller@j7nospx4amplease.net> writes:

    > I’m scanning old snapshots for CD archiving with the intention of
    > later printing- and maybe some editing. The output type on my scanner
    > is .jpg, and scanned resolution of 300. I’ve been scanning a couple
    > to a few pictures at a time, then copy and paste them into new
    > individual .jpg’s.

    Um, the resolution you just gave doesn't *mean* anything. A digital
    image has no dimensions, so resoluation has no referent. What pixel
    dimensions are you scanning at?

    > I remember reading somewhere that each time a .jpg is opened and
    > edited it loses some quality. Is this quality negligible, or would I
    > be better off saving it in a non-compressed format from my scanner and
    > then separate them into the smaller .jpg’s? (saving at least one open
    > and edit session)

    Actually, it's each time the jpeg is *compressed* (which means each
    time it's *saved*) that there's some loss. I never edit a jpeg if I
    can help it (except for the degenerate case of a camera-original when
    the camera stores in jpeg); so I never store the master copy of
    anything I've scanned as a jpeg. I always use tiff or PSD (photoshop
    proprietary, hence not ideally desirable; but I already own a copy of
    photoshop).

    > Also, the hp scanning software that came with my scanner is sadly
    > lacking. Any recommendations for new scanning software?

    Never tried any third-party scanner software, so no idea what's good.
    If Vue-scan supports your scanner, that'd be one a lot of other people
    have liked. But really, you need so little from flatbed scanner
    software.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
  2. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    The loss can be considerable. If your scanner can only save as JPG, and most
    will give you other choices, then scan it and convert to either TIF or the
    default for your editing software. The default will often save features that
    TIF will not...like layers if they are supported. After your editing if you
    need a JPG convert again. That is just one re-save and is the best that you
    can do. Save the TIF as your "negative" in case you want to edit further. If
    you can scan at more than 300 you will be happier....if you scan a 4x5 at
    300 dpi and you want an 8x10 then your print will be only 75 DPI.

    "TMiller" <TMiller@j7nospx4amplease.net> wrote in message
    news:PL7Yd.158$hg.135@news01.roc.ny...
    > I’m scanning old snapshots for CD archiving with the intention of later
    > printing- and maybe some editing. The output type on my scanner is
    > .jpg, and scanned resolution of 300. I’ve been scanning a couple to a
    > few pictures at a time, then copy and paste them into new individual
    > .jpg’s.
    > I remember reading somewhere that each time a .jpg is opened and edited
    > it loses some quality. Is this quality negligible, or would I be better
    > off saving it in a non-compressed format from my scanner and then
    > separate them into the smaller .jpg’s? (saving at least one open and
    > edit session)
    >
    > Also, the hp scanning software that came with my scanner is sadly
    > lacking. Any recommendations for new scanning software?
    >
    >
    > Thanks for any and all suggestions,
    > Terry
  3. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    [Scan at 300DPI]

    > Um, the resolution you just gave doesn't *mean* anything.

    Actually it does. We've seen so many "A digital image has no
    resolution" arguments, that we tend to forget what DPI really is.

    The original in this case is not digital, it's a physical image on
    paper. To say that it was scanned at 300DPI is a very valid and usable
    information, as we know that the physical media has a limit as to how
    much information we can get from it.

    Now, the question is whether TMiller scans negatives, dias or paper
    copies. Given the 300DPI and his basic question (no offence TMiller),
    I would say it's paper copies. In that case, 300DPI is fine for color,
    600DPI might be more fitting if B/W.

    http://www.scantips.com/basics08.html

    > A digital image has no dimensions, so resoluation has no referent.
    > What pixel dimensions are you scanning at?

    Quite the opposite. He's scanning for archiving and thus wants to
    preserve what he can. The pixel dimension is in this case useless,
    since we need to know the papersize in order to judge if the pixel size
    was well chosen. If we get both (pixel & physical size), then weøre
    just reinventing DPI.
    --
    Toke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/
  4. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    TMiller wrote:
    > I’m scanning old snapshots for CD archiving with the intention of later
    > printing- and maybe some editing.

    I'd say print some out (take the CD to Wal-Mart, Wallgreens, or some
    other place that makes chemical prints) and see if you like the quality.
    If you're happy with what you get, then there is no reason to change.

    If the compression is fairly modest, then you probably won't be able to
    see the loss involved with the jpg. 300 dpi is probably a lot more than
    the original prints have.

    I don't know how much scanner software would cost, but if you decide to
    upgrade, consider that a Microtek scanner costs around $100 and the
    software it comes with is good.

    Bob
  5. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Toke Eskildsen <darkwing@daimi.au.dk> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >
    > [Scan at 300DPI]
    >
    >> Um, the resolution you just gave doesn't *mean* anything.
    >
    > Actually it does. We've seen so many "A digital image has no
    > resolution" arguments, that we tend to forget what DPI really is.
    >
    > The original in this case is not digital, it's a physical image on
    > paper. To say that it was scanned at 300DPI is a very valid and usable
    > information, as we know that the physical media has a limit as to how
    > much information we can get from it.

    Except that scanner software gives you another variable that makes
    that meaning unreliable. *If* he has the software set to 100% size,
    then the 300DPI means something sort-of.

    And that having that "DPI" value embedded in digital files has caused
    more confusion even than color management, and the smart thing to do
    is just learn to ignore it.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Ask a new question

Read More

Scanners Cameras