U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Question re dpi for scan...

Re: Question re dpi for scan...

  • To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
  • Subject: Re: Question re dpi for scan...
  • From: francis schanberger <frangst@gmail.com>
  • Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 08:45:29 -0400
  • Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
  • Delivered-to: alt-photo-process-l-archive@www.usask.ca
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com;s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;bh=FUAwqCcGLUqxIWBJzRPa7fyVwL92PUentiG8r5kA/Lo=;b=xxHP7v4hqAjR48f2xyjRxQNTeSDy+dLPW2hCoI4vTJssfh5y/xSthEdeTyqwTdfO6RnQRJrNnGnXmvXTWMAt9WqgPcYjH57Uk8Zmlrr+idfA2LzLYDS2oStAq9H4VkOjYGYvkCHXuXnlnKPbHJ4+qAR2YP7W9e9i/TImC/JuCK8=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;b=YTT7J74/2zbq8yDcfWOxcVWs/+3iENeWvbukdI80yBB7n6SBXVWdiUx/wEvHR3ziJln+U6v/ztlFrR6P7QvRbs0ak51Ymjw7D+/zQ7yQtXMbGfLCHwfOWvhfesk07oa003vJCYEKb9n5BKl8UfKb3HttoPfBDH9VX7MKCpYPnXU=
  • In-reply-to: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0905062200110.12354@panix3.panix.com>
  • List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
  • References: <9587.><52619.><BV.WM.2.0.pv.><49183.><COL116-W53F48902126F8D1CD39E6ABB6E0@phx.gbl><16446.><COL116-W1462C75C1002A1B345BB63BB6F0@phx.gbl><Pine.NEB.4.64.0905062200110.12354@panix3.panix.com>
  • Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca

I admit that my knowledge in this area is untested and sketchy but I determine scan resolution by what size and on which type of printer I will end up printing a transparency. Right now I am using an Epson 2200 and making negatives on 13 x 19 substrate (the Arista transparency film). I still don't understand the specifics (whether it has to do with number of inks, droplet size, whatever) but I always out put the negatives on the 2200 at 360 dpi. So I scan at a ppi to achieve an image size that I won't have to upscale in PS. So when I scan my pollen samples and leaves they may be very small but the resolution will allow me to make a 12 x 12 at 360 dpi.

What are other outputing negatives at on say a 4800 or 4880 and why?

I hope this helps.


On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com> wrote:
Dear List,

Tho I've printed (gum, et al) from lith & reversal negs & who knows what else for years, feeling strong this week I decided to revisit the large flatbed scanner eating up my table top since forever (ie, not earning its keep) to make an 11x17 negative from an original 11x17 inch b&w print.

The problem was, I'd forgotten a few details: I realize that at least some of the answers will be in P-F (#8, as I recall) -- but thought "the list" might have some other, maybe wiser, suggestions by now. I scanned at 600 dpi -- picked because one of the last large negs I printed on the 1160 was marked something like that, -- tho this large scan came in at 69.6 MB (I suppose small in the grand scheme of things nowadays -- and Photoshop didn't mind, adjusting contrast & reversing, etc., without complaint, but larger than I'm used to.)

But now I'm thinking (hoping): enough with the lith film! I think I mentioned I couldn't even make my safe light go on in the wet darkroom, which I take for a message from the gum gods. Years ago I tested printer strategies for gum, & plan to revisit them now... I have various clear and coated transparency materials, but suggestions, including dpi to scan and print out at, among other variables, would be much appreciated.

I might even need a new inkjet printer -- tho this one is like a member of the family by now... Fortunately, gum lets me dither around the point, without having to hit the spot right off (as certain other media seem to require -- heh! heh!), but IMO dithering is best when it's voluntary.

with many thanks in advance,


francis schanberger