Problems w/ new Digital Darkroom

<p>I entered the digital age, and it was going pretty well until I started to print things out. I have 1000s of 35mm negatives to scan(and that number keeps growing), and I'm using a Nikon 9000 to do that. I'm saving the scans as jpeg (first on to a desktop and then on to an external hard drive). </p>

<p>I got a nice new Epson 2880 to print everything. But when I try to print a saved jpeg out for either the desktop or external hard drive, it's coming out as a thumbnail. I've messed with the printer settings and nothing seems to effect the size. </p>

<p>When I first got the printer, a couple weeks ago, I printed out three pictures and they were all nice and big. I don't know if I'm doing anything different now.</p>

<p>I'm about 150 scans into my project, but I wanted to figure this mess out before I do any more scanning. If it matters, my computer is a Mac.</p>

<p>Does anybody have any ideas as what that might be?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Stephen, methinks the image size is set in your scanner software settings. It is not the computer that matters, it is the scanner software or the image processing software (Photoshop, Aperture, Preview, iPhoto) that matters. You have the best of everything in the way of hardware. Go slow in reading the manual. It will come to you.</p>

 

<p>I think Nikonscan defaults to tagging an image as 4000dpi (not helpful for printing). In Photoshop go into the image resizing dialog, uncheck resample image and change 4000dpi to something reasonable like 300dpi. Then recheck resample and hit okay. This just redefines how many dots per inch your file is but doesn't harm the underlying data at all.</p>

<p>You set the picture size in two places in Nikonscan - (1) the mask size on the film and (2) the output size and resolution of the scanned image. Most scanning software works the same way, including Silverfast.</p>

<p>You can set the mask size to fall inside the borders of the film, or eliminate it altogether and scan at the full size of the 35mm frame. Make all the other settings too - curves, ICE, bit depth, etc. You must do this for each thumbnail or preview, or (preferably) save it as the default. After setting the default, simply rescan the thumbnails. Subsequent scans will use the new default settings.</p>

<p>You can set the output to any size. It defaults to the mask size (100%) which causes the thumbnail-sized printout you encountered. Set it instead to some size proportional to the 35mm frame, like 8x12 inches (2:3 ratio). Set the resolution to 4000 ppi - it will appear red and automatically change to the maximum optical resolution when you click outside of the resolution box. In other words, Nikonscan will automatically calculate the maximum <strong>optical </strong>resolution <strong>at the output size</strong>, and not resample to an inflated value (like most other scanning software). You can set the resolution to a lower value, and the scanner will resample as directed. I recommend scanning at full resolution the first time - it saves time in the long run.</p>

<p>Don't scan into a jpeg, if that's what you're doing. Scanned anything always requires some adjustment, and you shouldn't really be using JPEGs until it's the final image that you want to use - that is, saved as a JPEG only when no other editing will ever be done to it. Scan and work in TIFF. Scanning 1000's of negs will take a long, long, long time, so you want to do it right in the first place.</p>

<p>Funny that when I move a jpeg into an email I then can print the email with the picture full size. And the email won't transmit, because the picture is way too big.</p>

<p>Don't you have to save to jpeg? Otherwise you'll clog up all your memory. But the pictures look ok to me. There's a bunch of editing that can be done with the Nikon software.</p>

<p>If I saved these scans with the wrong output size does that mean I'll have to rescan?</p>

<p>Scanning is fun, but it's very time consuming.</p>

<p>Don't you have to save to jpeg? Otherwise you'll clog up all your memory. But the pictures look ok to me. There's a bunch of editing that can be done with the Nikon software.<br>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>

If you scan to JPG you discard so much information that trying to do any editing or correcting is a waste of time. I you are intending to do any serious work on an image it needs to be scanned into a TIFF as Pierre notes.<br>

Alan</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have 1000s of 35mm negatives to scan</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rather than scanning everything which will probably take up the rest of your spare time for the foreseeable future, Why not just scan as and when you need an image? The negatives are probably going to outlive the files anyway.</p>

<p>That way you can put more time into each image and get the best quality scan possible.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Stephen, you can use loss less compression with TIFF files, or just use zip to archive them. Nikon scan will not compress them I'm pretty sure, but photoshop will. They will not compress as much as jpgs but you will not loose any image data. </p>

<p>Scanning takes a lot of time to learn and it never gets fast. The Nikon 9000 is a very nice scanner, but still I'd suggest using a current DSLR.</p>

<p>Have you found the website www.scantips.com yet? A decent place to start.</p>