enlargement of old prints on to pc

On Mar 2, 9:04 pm, "Mike Russell" <RE-MOVEm... DeleteThis @Curvemeister.comRE-
MOVE> wrote:
> "JWBH" <blue.star... DeleteThis @REMOOOOVEvirgin.net> wrote in message
>
> news:vb_Fh.4345$hR3.204@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>
> >I was recently given some very old family photos. These are glossy black
> >and white prints, most are quite small about 7.5 cm or 3 inches square.
>
> > I have a cannon flat bed scanner, which needs connecting up to the pc and
> > which i hope still works and I have access to a three megapixel cannon ixy
> > and next week will be able to borrow a 7.5 megapixel Casio.
>
> > Which is the best way to reproduce these paper prints on to the pc with
> > the highest quality resolution? Since the faces on these prints are so
> > tiny and I want to enlarge them up as much as possible. thanks.
>
> Use the scanner. There can be a lot of detail in small format glossy
> prints. They are often contact prints, and you may be very pleasantly
> surprised with the amount of detail you can get.
>
> I general, scanners win for flat material, though they can be useful for
> copying prints in some situations. For example a camera may give a better
> result when the original is mounted in a frame, bound in a book, or has
> surface defects or texture that can be removed by special lighting and/or
> polarized filtering.
>
> Here's a good reference for scanning:http://www.scantips.com/
> --
> Mike Russellwww.curvemeister.com/forum/

The advice given by Trev in the previous post is spot on. If you have,
or can get a photo editing programme
to remove blemishes, sharpen and adjust brightness/ contrast etc, you
will find you have a much better photo
than the original.
 >> Stay informed about: enlargement of old prints on to pc 

"JWBH" <blue.star777.DeleteThis@REMOOOOVEvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:vb_Fh.4345$hR3.204@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>I was recently given some very old family photos. These are glossy black
>and white prints, most are quite small about 7.5 cm or 3 inches square.
>
> I have a cannon flat bed scanner, which needs connecting up to the pc and
> which i hope still works and I have access to a three megapixel cannon ixy
> and next week will be able to borrow a 7.5 megapixel Casio.
>
> Which is the best way to reproduce these paper prints on to the pc with
> the highest quality resolution? Since the faces on these prints are so
> tiny and I want to enlarge them up as much as possible. thanks.
>
Scan them at 600ppi and print at 200ppi will enlarge 3x to 9 sq. Unless
there is any texture in the paper you should have no problem and better even
illumination than if you used a Camera.
The pixel count resolution is not the same as resolving power more does not
necessarily give better images all that is needed is enough. In a 200ppi
print the smallest detail will be 200th of an inch If you think you can see
better with the naked eye at say a print held at 12inch from you by all
means print at a little higher ppi
 >> Stay informed about: enlargement of old prints on to pc 

"JWBH" <blue.star777 DeleteThis @REMOOOOVEvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:CR3Gh.32825$s47.23443@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
....
> Are you guys hot, or what! many thanks to all.......
> if it all goes pear shaped, who do i complain too. just joking.

You're welcome to complain to me, provided you explain exactly what is meant
by "pear shaped".
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/
 >> Stay informed about: enlargement of old prints on to pc 

"JWBH" <blue.star777 DeleteThis @REMOOOOVEvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:vb_Fh.4345$hR3.204@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>I was recently given some very old family photos. These are glossy black
>and white prints, most are quite small about 7.5 cm or 3 inches square.
>
> I have a cannon flat bed scanner, which needs connecting up to the pc and
> which i hope still works and I have access to a three megapixel cannon ixy
> and next week will be able to borrow a 7.5 megapixel Casio.
>
> Which is the best way to reproduce these paper prints on to the pc with
> the highest quality resolution? Since the faces on these prints are so
> tiny and I want to enlarge them up as much as possible. thanks.

Use the scanner. There can be a lot of detail in small format glossy
prints. They are often contact prints, and you may be very pleasantly
surprised with the amount of detail you can get.

I general, scanners win for flat material, though they can be useful for
copying prints in some situations. For example a camera may give a better
result when the original is mounted in a frame, bound in a book, or has
surface defects or texture that can be removed by special lighting and/or
polarized filtering.

Here's a good reference for scanning:
http://www.scantips.com/
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/
 >> Stay informed about: enlargement of old prints on to pc 

"alrafter" <al.rhodes.RemoveThis@telinco.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1172878863.970066.79500@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 2, 9:04 pm, "Mike Russell" <RE-MOVEm....RemoveThis@Curvemeister.comRE-
> MOVE> wrote:
>> "JWBH" <blue.star....RemoveThis@REMOOOOVEvirgin.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:vb_Fh.4345$hR3.204@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> >I was recently given some very old family photos. These are glossy
>> >black
>> >and white prints, most are quite small about 7.5 cm or 3 inches square.
>>
>> > I have a cannon flat bed scanner, which needs connecting up to the pc
>> > and
>> > which i hope still works and I have access to a three megapixel cannon
>> > ixy
>> > and next week will be able to borrow a 7.5 megapixel Casio.
>>
>> > Which is the best way to reproduce these paper prints on to the pc with
>> > the highest quality resolution? Since the faces on these prints are so
>> > tiny and I want to enlarge them up as much as possible. thanks.
>>
>> Use the scanner. There can be a lot of detail in small format glossy
>> prints. They are often contact prints, and you may be very pleasantly
>> surprised with the amount of detail you can get.
>>
>> I general, scanners win for flat material, though they can be useful for
>> copying prints in some situations. For example a camera may give a
>> better
>> result when the original is mounted in a frame, bound in a book, or has
>> surface defects or texture that can be removed by special lighting and/or
>> polarized filtering.
>>
>> Here's a good reference for scanning:http://www.scantips.com/
>> --
>> Mike Russellwww.curvemeister.com/forum/
>
> The advice given by Trev in the previous post is spot on. If you have,
> or can get a photo editing programme
> to remove blemishes, sharpen and adjust brightness/ contrast etc, you
> will find you have a much better photo
> than the original.

Are you guys hot, or what! many thanks to all.......
if it all goes pear shaped, who do i complain too. just joking.
>
 >> Stay informed about: enlargement of old prints on to pc 

Nobody as you'll still have the original.

--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

"JWBH" <blue.star777.TakeThisOut@REMOOOOVEvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:CR3Gh.32825$s47.23443@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
:
:
: Are you guys hot, or what! many thanks to all.......
: if it all goes pear shaped, who do i complain too. just
joking.
: >
:
:
 >> Stay informed about: enlargement of old prints on to pc 

On 2 Mar 2007 15:41:04 -0800, "alrafter" <al.rhodes.RemoveThis@telinco.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Mar 2, 9:04 pm, "Mike Russell" <RE-MOVEm....RemoveThis@Curvemeister.comRE-
>MOVE> wrote:
>> "JWBH" <blue.star....RemoveThis@REMOOOOVEvirgin.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:vb_Fh.4345$hR3.204@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> >I was recently given some very old family photos. These are glossy black
>> >and white prints, most are quite small about 7.5 cm or 3 inches square.
>>
>> > I have a cannon flat bed scanner, which needs connecting up to the pc and
>> > which i hope still works and I have access to a three megapixel cannon ixy
>> > and next week will be able to borrow a 7.5 megapixel Casio.
>>
>> > Which is the best way to reproduce these paper prints on to the pc with
>> > the highest quality resolution? Since the faces on these prints are so
>> > tiny and I want to enlarge them up as much as possible. thanks.
>>
>> Use the scanner. There can be a lot of detail in small format glossy
>> prints. They are often contact prints, and you may be very pleasantly
>> surprised with the amount of detail you can get.
>>
>> I general, scanners win for flat material, though they can be useful for
>> copying prints in some situations. For example a camera may give a better
>> result when the original is mounted in a frame, bound in a book, or has
>> surface defects or texture that can be removed by special lighting and/or
>> polarized filtering.
>>
>> Here's a good reference for scanning:http://www.scantips.com/
>> --
>> Mike Russellwww.curvemeister.com/forum/
>
>The advice given by Trev in the previous post is spot on. If you have,
>or can get a photo editing programme
>to remove blemishes, sharpen and adjust brightness/ contrast etc, you
>will find you have a much better photo
>than the original.
>

Since the slant of the advice here prefers the scanner, and I agree,
but only if the scanner is a recent design with adequate features. In
case it isn't, then photographing the prints can be an acceptable
alternative - PROVIDED the camera has suitable macro focusing for
close range. Without that, no matter the size in megapixels, it will
not suffice.
 >> Stay informed about: enlargement of old prints on to pc 

"JWBH" <blue.star777.TakeThisOut@REMOOOOVEvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:CjvIh.57002$Da4.25664@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...

[re scanner versus camera]
> Thanks to all. Since my scanner is quite old, it's a 'Canon FB636U'
> would that be good enough?

NO problem - this is a dynamite scanner.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/
 >> Stay informed about: enlargement of old prints on to pc 

"Olin K. McDaniel" <omcdaniel.abcd RemoveThis @mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:45f21ece.42284377@news.east.earthlink.net...
> On 2 Mar 2007 15:41:04 -0800, "alrafter" <al.rhodes RemoveThis @telinco.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 2, 9:04 pm, "Mike Russell" <RE-MOVEm... RemoveThis @Curvemeister.comRE-
>>MOVE> wrote:
>>> "JWBH" <blue.star... RemoveThis @REMOOOOVEvirgin.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:vb_Fh.4345$hR3.204@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>>>
>>> >I was recently given some very old family photos. These are glossy
>>> >black
>>> >and white prints, most are quite small about 7.5 cm or 3 inches square.
>>>
>>> > I have a cannon flat bed scanner, which needs connecting up to the pc
>>> > and
>>> > which i hope still works and I have access to a three megapixel cannon
>>> > ixy
>>> > and next week will be able to borrow a 7.5 megapixel Casio.
>>>
>>> > Which is the best way to reproduce these paper prints on to the pc
>>> > with
>>> > the highest quality resolution? Since the faces on these prints are so
>>> > tiny and I want to enlarge them up as much as possible. thanks.
>>>
>>> Use the scanner. There can be a lot of detail in small format glossy
>>> prints. They are often contact prints, and you may be very pleasantly
>>> surprised with the amount of detail you can get.
>>>
>>> I general, scanners win for flat material, though they can be useful for
>>> copying prints in some situations. For example a camera may give a
>>> better
>>> result when the original is mounted in a frame, bound in a book, or has
>>> surface defects or texture that can be removed by special lighting
>>> and/or
>>> polarized filtering.
>>>
>>> Here's a good reference for scanning:http://www.scantips.com/
>>> --
>>> Mike Russellwww.curvemeister.com/forum/
>>
>>The advice given by Trev in the previous post is spot on. If you have,
>>or can get a photo editing programme
>>to remove blemishes, sharpen and adjust brightness/ contrast etc, you
>>will find you have a much better photo
>>than the original.
>>
>
> Since the slant of the advice here prefers the scanner, and I agree,
> but only if the scanner is a recent design with adequate features. In
> case it isn't, then photographing the prints can be an acceptable
> alternative - PROVIDED the camera has suitable macro focusing for
> close range. Without that, no matter the size in megapixels, it will
> not suffice.

Thanks to all. Since my scanner is quite old, it's a 'Canon FB636U' would
that be good enough?

Or what kind of 'adequate features' should I be looking for on a new one?
Any suggestions on which one to buy, that is reasonably priced much
appreciated.
 >> Stay informed about: enlargement of old prints on to pc 

JWBH <blue.star777.DeleteThis@REMOOOOVEvirgin.net> observed
>
>Thanks to all. Since my scanner is quite old, it's a 'Canon FB636U' would
>that be good enough?

I think that I would suggest you try.

Even 10 years ago using an old Mustek scanner, I was able to get good
Black and white and reasonable colour reproductions.

Don't forget that you will not be able to get better results than are
visible in the original print. If your scanner can give 600 x 600 lines
per inch resolution, you are probably OK.

I have been amazed that a small increase in contrast gives an excellent
improvement in quality.

>Or what kind of 'adequate features' should I be looking for on a new one?
>Any suggestions on which one to buy, that is reasonably priced much
>appreciated.

Frankly, until you are dissatisfied with what you have, I wouldn't
bother.

I now have an £80 Visioneer One Touch 9000 (that many here will sneer
at) but it serves my purpose. Its main advantage is that the top is
'side hinged' which I find easier to use.

YMMV, of course.

Mike

[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
<><
Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused
the meaning of "discussion" with "digression".
<><
 >> Stay informed about: enlargement of old prints on to pc