Message-Id: <199706051511.IAA293668@dns.ccit.arizona.edu> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 10:11:44 CDT From: Patricia Bruce <mailto:PBruce@SWRI.EDU> Subject: Re: 4x6? 5x7? 8x10? To: mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Small, high quality print, if the detail is not too small..... however I would have used a medium/large format camera for arch. shots. (old pro.) You need to take your ultimate use/uses into consideration."Jeffrey S. Erickson" <mailto:jeericks@DAVIDSON.EDU> Wrote: |
| A question for you experienced photographers who do
| scanning:
| I have just done some architectural shots, using
| Fujicolor Reala
| 35mm. print film (ISO 100). I intend to have these
| processed by a local
| professional lab, and then to scan the prints for
| inclusion in our art
| department's web page. For a film such as this, shot with
| fairly good Canon
| equipment, and *all other things being equal*, will I get
| better scan
| results working with a smaller, *apparently* sharper
| print, or a larger
| print? I suppose part of the answer will turn on what one
| can do to a
| scanned image after scanning and compressing, using in
| this case Mac Image
| Assistant.
| The scanner I will be using is a Hewlett-Packard
| ScanJet 4-C. I
| will be scanning the images first in TIFF format, then
| JPEG compressing at a
| ratio of 1:25, at "80% quality" (Mac Image Assistant
| variable).
| Any thoughts on this?
| Thanks.
| J. Erickson
|
|
| Jeffrey S. Erickson phone:
| 704-892-2590
| Slide Collection, Visual Arts Ctr. fax:
| 704-892-2691
| Davidson College e-mail:
| mailto:jeericks@davidson.edu
| 315 N. Main St.
| P. O. Box 1720
| Davidson, North Carolina 28036 USA
|
| Disclaimer:
| "The fact that I've made a slide of it doesn't mean that I
| think it's art."
|