Need Scanning Advice for B&W Photos

[tony_m]

<p>I have a few relatively sharp and correctly exposed black and white photos I want to scan into Photshop.

The print sizes average 7"x 8". Need advice as to the best dpi setting or any other suggestions

which will deliver the scans. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>300 ppi will capture all the detail in a print with room to spare. I usually scan at 16 bits/channel to allow more room for adjustments. You can scan in B&W or RGB - it doesn't matter because the scanner is always RGB, and you convert in the scanner to save space or later for more control.</p>

<p>Glossy prints scan best, if they are flat and smooth. Textured prints usually show odd reflections from the texture. You would be better off using a copy camera, digital or otherwise, with off-axis lighting, possibly polarized.</p>

[jim_jones3]

<p>If the photos will be displayed as larger prints, scanning at greater than 300ppi will be better. I usually scan at much higher ppi, then downsize and sharpen to send to the printer at the printer's native ppi. If your photos are scanned only for monitors or the internet, 300ppi should be fine.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>First off, if you have the negatives, you're almost certain to get a better result by scanning the negative, although it may require more digital darkroom work (especially to adjust the shape of the response curve with the curves tool) to be ready to use.</p>

<p>Second, to clarify, I think Edward's comment, "You would be better off using a copy camera, digital or otherwise, with off-axis lighting, possibly polarized," referred only to prints on substantially textured paper. Glossy prints usually scan fine with a garden-variety fladbed; prints on textured surfaces can cause all sorts of trouble, so the copy camera might make more sense (because unlike with the scanner, you can control how the light hits the paper).</p>

<p>As to the suggestion, "If the photos will be displayed as larger prints, scanning at greater than 300ppi will be better," I disagree. Unless you are talking about contact prints, the presence of finer detail is pretty unlikely. When you scan at higher resolution, the only additional things you're capturing are the silver grains and the paper's micro-texture. Because there is virtually no <em>real</em> additional image detail to be captured, a more sensible approach is to scan at 300 ppi and, if it improves the result (and it doesn't always), upscale in the digital darkroom with your favorite technique for doing so (cubic or whatever), which can prevent pixellation but will not improve real image detail or sharpness (not that scanning at higher resolution will either).</p>

[tony_m]

<p>Thanks to Edward, Jim and Dave. I now a few good starting points for scanning B&W photos.<br>

Dave, wish I did have the negatives but they were lost along with a few thousand other negatives when my darkroom was flooded. I'm now in the initial stages of moving to digital and doing my best to conquer the learning curve. I plan to take a starter Photoshop course to get me started.</p>

[mattb1]

<p>Tony, IMO a flatbed scanner works, as stated above, on well preserved prints. If the prints have scratches, even minor ones, or mold or any other imperfection a flatbed scanner at 300 dpi will recreate and make the imperfections more apparent. A copy type camera will minimize the imperfections or at least keep them at their current levels. So, for most prints I would say skip flatbed scanner. At least that is my experience with low cost consumer scanners.</p>