scanning 2X3 B&W prints from 1920's - 50s

[colovaca]

I am scanning B&W prints of my kids' ancestors. Most are small enough that I can use high resolution without creating huge files.
I may want to print larger (8x10 or 12x14) of great grandparents. Am I wasting time going to top resolution?

I am using a Canoscan 9000F with an advertised capability of 4800x4800 for prints but menus (including advanced) only go to 1200.

Thanks for any help. Can you also refer me to a good forum for these kinds of questions. Most of what I am finding on the net is several years (and hardware generations) old.

 

[alkemyst]

if you are preserving anything go big or go home.

Add a magnatude to that for printing them big.

For just web shots, anything works.

 

[sixone]

Go with the top resolution available. If something happens to those prints, where you can't get your hands on them again, you won't get a second chance.

 

[spikespiegal]

The advertised resolution of these consumer scanners is almost absurd given none have been tested to get much higher than 1800-2400 actual dpi. There's a reason that high end shops use $50,000 drum scanners. Looking at sample shots from the Canon shows it can't resolve film grain.

In any case, the OP should test a few resolution settings first and see where diminishing returns set in, and he'll likely find 600dpi more than adequate. Beyond that he'll just see a lot of 'mush' because the gelatin coating on the paper will diffuse the scanner light source. Only glossy photos can deliver much resolution beyond 1000dpi.

For this reason I learned to simply use my dSLR to take pictures of old photos because you can arrange your light source in such a way to not exagerate the paper texture like a scanner will.

 

[colovaca]

Thanks for the advice. Spike, do I understand you correctly: you recommend a new digital photo (at say 5 meg) over a 1200 or even 4800 ppi scan?

 

[ElFenix]

Thanks for the advice. Spike, do I understand you correctly: you recommend a new digital photo (at say 5 meg) over a 1200 or even 4800 ppi scan?

a lot of the extra dpi does nothing to improve the scanned image.

 

[rivan]

The advertised resolution of these consumer scanners is almost absurd given none have been tested to get much higher than 1800-2400 actual dpi. There's a reason that high end shops use $50,000 drum scanners. Looking at sample shots from the Canon shows it can't resolve film grain.

As a former drum scanner operator, I can tell you that drums have long since been largely left behind with the advent of better, faster and less problem-prone flatbeds.

That said, not all flatbeds are created equal. As with most things, you get what you pay for, and technology has marched a long way in this area in the past decade.

In any case, the OP should test a few resolution settings first and see where diminishing returns set in, and he'll likely find 600dpi more than adequate.

For the most part, I agree with this, absolutely test. For full testing, scan at various resolutions, blow up 400% or 800% and print cropped areas of high detail. See what your limits are, and adjust scanning accordingly.

Beyond that he'll just see a lot of 'mush' because the gelatin coating on the paper will diffuse the scanner light source. Only glossy photos can deliver much resolution beyond 1000dpi.

While I agree you probably won't see much beyond 1000 dpi, the reasoning is pure silliness.

For this reason I learned to simply use my dSLR to take pictures of old photos because you can arrange your light source in such a way to not exagerate the paper texture like a scanner will.

This is where I really fall off the train. If you're suggesting using your dSLR will yield better results than a scanner, you've either got a) a WAY better dSLR than I've ever seen, or b) a SUPER crappy scanner (or just don't know how to use it).

Also, while smoother substrates scan better, photos of this age will probably not be printed on textured stock.

Finally:

a lot of the extra dpi does nothing to improve the scanned image.

This, totally. The absolute best you can hope for is for your scanner to be able to resolve film grain, and if the original isn't sharp, your final won't be.

For your dropdown questions - where are you seeing the 1200 dpi limit? Are you scanning in greyscale (or some other mode) that limits it?

I was going to check the manual, but it's some wacky installed application rather than a PDF.

 

[ronbo613]

For this reason I learned to simply use my dSLR to take pictures of old photos because you can arrange your light source in such a way to not exagerate the paper texture like a scanner will.

Most camera lenses are not built to take flat field images, unless, of course, it is a macro lens. If you have a macro lens, bellows and copy stand setup, you could probably get decent images of photographs, but I think I would rather go with the flatbed scanner.
Your copies are only going to be as good as the original prints, which probably aren't that sharp if you look at them closely.

 

[colovaca]

Thanks again. I was using grey scale. I tried color and allow 16bit grey scale and the menu still toprs at 1200. I now see the manual has this to say:

<LI class=important_bullet type=disc>Some applications have a limit to the amount of scan data they can receive. ScanGear (scanner driver) can scan data that is of:
- 21000 pixels x 30000 pixels or less (and 1.8 GB or less in data size)
- 50000 pixels x 50000 pixels or less (and 4.0 GB or less in data size) (When the Enable Large Image Scans checkbox is selected on the Scan tab of the Preferences dialog box.)

I don't understand this but it doesn't seem relevant. Since I was only hoping for 4800 But with 2x3s I wouldn't hit the "data size" limit if my math is right. besides the ScanGear driver, the packed software is MP Navigator, but that seems to have even more limitations (600 ppi?) perhaps in exchange for ease of use.

 

[rivan]

Thanks again. I was using grey scale. I tried color and allow 16bit grey scale and the menu still toprs at 1200. I now see the manual has this to say:

<LI class=important_bullet type=disc>Some applications have a limit to the amount of scan data they can receive. ScanGear (scanner driver) can scan data that is of:
- 21000 pixels x 30000 pixels or less (and 1.8 GB or less in data size)
- 50000 pixels x 50000 pixels or less (and 4.0 GB or less in data size) (When the Enable Large Image Scans checkbox is selected on the Scan tab of the Preferences dialog box.)

I don't understand this but it doesn't seem relevant. Since I was only hoping for 4800 But with 2x3s I wouldn't hit the "data size" limit if my math is right. besides the ScanGear driver, the packed software is MP Navigator, but that seems to have even more limitations (600 ppi?) perhaps in exchange for ease of use.

Your math is fine - you should be well within those limits at 4800 ppi and size.

I dont know what your scanner software looks like, but in general, you need to do the following steps:

• Check settings
• Hit preview (this generates a fast scan of the bed, so you can crop the areas you want scanned and saved to a file)
• Crop your scan area
• Hit scan

It might be that you need to switch the order around - crop the scan area, then the higher resolution options will become available.

Maybe some screenshots of the interface would help? Does the resolution menu contain the higher options, but are greyed out? Have you tried calling your retailer?

 

[ElFenix]

for my own scanning with an 8600F and FS4000us i dumped canon's utils and used vuescan. $40 for a one year license or $80 for a lifetime professional license.

 

[colovaca]

Thank you Rivan and Fenix. (Distracted by car problems). I will try to review and pull screen shots tonight.