Message-Id: <199706060723.AAA34898@dns.ccit.arizona.edu> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 17:33:17 +1000 From: Jennifer Brasher <mailto:J.Brasher@INS.GU.EDU.AU> Subject: Re: 4x6? 5x7? 8x10? To: mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
I'm meant to be flexing off this afternoon, but I caught this one! When did publication standards come into this? Did I miss something? The original enquiry doesn't mention publication standard.>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.
35 mm film negatives ( excuse "m" typo - m for metre is mind boggling- a 35 metre negative!),( N.B. Film negatives scan better than slides, as they have more dynamic range with 11 F Stops as opposed to 8) are scanned for art research/digital imaging projects ( easily done with a film negative attachment for our KODAK RFS 1300 Camera), but even slides are scanned for research purposes, e.g. American University for the MESL Project,is scanning 35 mm slides using a Polaroid Sprintscanner. Opens up the old standards argument. ( I scan from slides, but may ask artists to send negs in the future as well. )
Jeffrey mentions scanning from the photographic "print" taken from 35 mm film , which would not be of publishable standard by any means. I was saying ( very shortly and perhaps indistinctly) it would be an improvement if he scans from the negative, even at 35 mm. Seems George Holmes agrees with this. Prints have less info. than negatives. Unfortunately he only has a flatbed scanner, so this is not an option.
But of course 4"X5" negatives ( if not 8" X 10" negs for top end publishing)are generally mandatory for scanning for print publishable standard (what print?- newspapers/ magazines/ top end publishing - all vary). From memory the Metropolitan Museum of Art uses negs. scanned with Advantex scanners or Digital Leaf Cameras ( US $60,000 ea) digitising directly from the orginal art object, to gain an average 12 megabyte file for 8"X10" editorial prints . Microsoft Archives thinks a 600DPI TIFF file is a large enough file for press releases.
If, I recall, info from the Getty Institute "Introduction to Imaging" ( Besser and Trant ) says 35mm for intricately detailed works or large scale objects might not be satisfactory at all, unless multiple zoom ( close up) shots ( negatives)are taken. There is about 7 times the information ( or pixels) to be gained from an 8" X 10" negative ( they call it a " transparency"), ( i.e. 3 1/2 times more info. from a 4"X5" neg), than in a 35 mm slide.
Ciao
Jennifer
>At 08:39 AM 6/6/97 +1000, J Brasher wrote:
>>Better to scan from the negative - better still to scan from 4x5" negs, but
>>35m still quite good. Jennifer
>
>Curious how things change. In my student days, 35mm negs were considered
>unpublishable, 4x5 were okay for publications and 8x10 (and larger: 16x20s)
>were considered reference prints. When you bought an 8x10 print from a
>museum, more likely than not, it was a contact print.
>
>R.Baron
mailto:>rabaron@pipeline.com>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."
VIEWS EXPRESSED MAY BE PERSONAL,NOT NECESSARILY UNIVERSITY POLICY. ******************************************************************************
Jennifer Brasher `` ` ` ` EMAIL: mailto:J.Brasher@ins.gu.edu.au QCA Library Slides/ Digital Images `` ` ` VOICE: +61 (07) 3875 3132
` ` ` ` ` FAX: +61 (07) 3875 3133 SNAIL MAIL ` ` ` ` Queensland College of Art Library ` ` ` ` * Griffith University ``````` *
Clearview Terrace ``*` * Morningside Campus * PO Box 84 Morningside Brisbane Queensland 4170 Australia ******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************