What res to scan 8x10 B&W hi-res photo?

[Muse]

I have an 8x10 B&W photo (print) taken when I was in 6th grade (decades ago) of my graduating class. It shows everyone in my class, nearly 100 kids and a couple of our teachers 5 rows deep standing in levels in an auditorium. It looks fairly high resolution, but there is a little blurring here and there where kids moved. I'm guessing this was taken with a 4x5 film camera on a tripod, maybe a bigger format. Looking closely I see that the photographer wrote a coded message on one of the floor tiles on the negative (T746-65), possibly for his own reference so he'd know who-what-where in case someone later wanted more prints. I have a Canon Canoscan Lide 35 scanner and the software will let me scan up to output resolution 1200 in B&W. I want to preserve the photo. What resolution should I use and what format should I save it in?

 

[Anubis]

always scan it at the max. save it as a TIFF or PSD if using photoshop. or some other uncompressed format

 

[Muse]

always scan it at the max. save it as a TIFF or PSD if using photoshop. or some other uncompressed format

Thanks. One more question: B&W or gray scale?

 

[crashtestdummy]

Thanks. One more question: B&W or gray scale?

Gray scale. B&W will give you black pixels and white pixels only. Since it's old, you may even want to scan in color to keep the sepia tone that's probably creeped in over time.

 

[shortylickens]

Gray scale. B&W will give you black pixels and white pixels only. Since it's old, you may even want to scan in color to keep the sepia tone that's probably creeped in over time.

Agreed.
Always scan in color. You can edit later.

 

[Muse]

Agreed.
Always scan in color. You can edit later.

So, just print if desired from the color scan, in my case done at 1200dpi? Or do I want to convert the color scan to a gray scale image after the scan? It's a glossy photo, BTW.

 

[twistedlogic]

So, just print if desired from the color scan, in my case done at 1200dpi?

Are you reprinting this photo bigger than 8*10?

Isn't 1200dpi a bit excessive? 300dpi should yield the same image reproduced @ 8*10, 600dpi should give you a 300dpi 16*20. If I did the math right, 1200dpi should yield a 115MP file, which isn't fun to work with and won't add much detail if any, as you said the exposure was longer so its not the sharpest print to begin with.

 

[smitbret]

72 dpi if it will be used for web display
300 dpi if you'll be making smaller prints (360 if the destination printer is an Epson)
600 dpi if you'll be making more 8x10 (720 if the destination printer is an Epson)

Anymore than that is really pointless. You can't pull more information than what already exists. At more than 600/720, you're just adding duplicate information in even the finest resolution prints.

Save in uncompressed .tiff format for greatest backward compatibility. Only save .jpeg for finished product.

 

[Muse]

72 dpi if it will be used for web display
300 dpi if you'll be making smaller prints (360 if the destination printer is an Epson)
600 dpi if you'll be making more 8x10 (720 if the destination printer is an Epson)

Anymore than that is really pointless. You can't pull more information than what already exists. At more than 600/720, you're just adding duplicate information in even the finest resolution prints.

Save in uncompressed .tiff format for greatest backward compatibility. Only save .jpeg for finished product.

OK, sounds good. But some more questions: Scan in color and save as a color TIFF and keep it like that or do I want to convert that to gray scale at some point? Or is it OK to just keep the TIFF as a color scan?

Edit: I just scanned in color at 600dpi. Looked at the result on my 19" LCD at the default zoom setting, pretty zoomed in at this size, the file is 75 MB. I see some weird stuff, looks to be dust (white). Could that be on the print or is that the print (i.e. the original negative)? I didn't notice that looking at the 8x10. Looking closely now at my "original" 8x10 print with a magnifier and a flashlight I think that some of it was dust on the negative in the enlarger when the prints were made and some of it is damage to the decades old print. You don't really notice that stuff when looking full screen at the whole thing at once on my 19" monitor, though, just when at the default magnification using the hand grabber to move around. From the blur I'm seeing on many faces I'm guessing 1/15 second shutter speed, no faster than 1/30.

 

[Emulex]

if you keep it in tiff you can blow it up to 42" using simple bicubic for enlargement if you need the resolution you could use s-spline to enhance it more but i think thats for >4X magnification.

the designjet 42" i have does 1200dpi @ 44" so thats some hella large file if you wanted

 

[Muse]

I think I might do some touchup on this using Photoshop Elements. There's a nasty scratch on my face! For fun, mostly. I'm not familiar with touching up digital images, here's a chance to do some.
- - - -
"Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think." - Werner Heisenberg

 

[Throckmorton]

Just scan the thing at 1200 DPI and put it away. Unless you're out of hard drive space