Scanning Photos

[matteusclement]

I am using adobe acrobat pro 9 to scan old photo to do restoration.
The scanner I am using does 1200 dpi.
The default output file is PDF but I have been saving them into lossless TIFF files as well.

1. Is tiff better than PDF for editting
2. Am I wasting my time with the extra step of making them a TIFF

I am editting them in photoshop CS4 for restoration from fading and scratches.

 

[firestarter]

Pdf is an awful choice for bitmap files - TIFF would be a lot better.

 

[matteusclement]

thanks.
just out of curiousity, are PDF vector based?

 

[Ruahrc]

Not necessarily. I tend to think of it as pdf being like a word document, where you can imbed bitmapped images, or use vector graphics. The document container does not really define the data within.

 

[pdxflint]

What scanner are you using? Why don't you just use the scanner software that came with the scanner? You should be able to scan photos into .tiff or .jpg files. I'm not sure what you need Acrobat for when scanning... maybe I need to be enlightened.

 

[spice weasel]

What scanner are you using? Why don't you just use the scanner software that came with the scanner? You should be able to scan photos into .tiff or .jpg files. I'm not sure what you need Acrobat for when scanning... maybe I need to be enlightened.

I agree. Or, better yet, just scan them into Photoshop using the TWAIN driver since you are using it to fix them up anyway. No need to use Acrobat.

 

[MisterMe]

thanks.
just out of curiousity, are PDF vector based?

Yes. This does not mean that PDF can't handle raster (bitmap) images. It does mean that PDF is a poor choice for raster images. MacOS X all the back to NeXTstep used TIFF as its raster image format.

 

[flynz4]

I am using adobe acrobat pro 9 to scan old photo to do restoration.
The scanner I am using does 1200 dpi.
The default output file is PDF but I have been saving them into lossless TIFF files as well.

1. Is tiff better than PDF for editting
2. Am I wasting my time with the extra step of making them a TIFF

I am editting them in photoshop CS4 for restoration from fading and scratches.

Prints have no where near 1200 dpi of inherent resolution. Scanning at that high of a resolution will do nothing to improve quality, and will just give you a huge file.

http://www.scantips.com/ is a great reference.

/Jim

 

[MisterMe]

Prints have no where near 1200 dpi of inherent resolution. Scanning at that high of a resolution will do nothing to improve quality, and will just give you a huge file.

http://www.scantips.com/ is a great reference.

/Jim

Good reference, but you are over interpreting the lessons that it teaches. If all you intend to do is to reprint a scanned image at it current size or smaller, or if you intend to use it only in electronic form, then yes. If you intend to magnify the image in print, then your statement is an overreach. An image scanned at 1200 dpi gives a lot more headroom for magnification than one scanned at 300 dpi. This is particularly an issue with monochrome images as opposed to color.

 

[HBOC]

I remember when i was scanning @ 2900 dpi/16bit. The files were soo huge, like 60MB. A bit overkill, lol.

 

[spice weasel]

I remember when i was scanning @ 2900 dpi/16bit. The files were soo huge, like 60MB. A bit overkill, lol.

Yeah, but how else could you blow up those dust specks and scratches to poster-size?

 

[HBOC]

i didn't blow mine up, i just scanned them!

 

[flynz4]

Good reference, but you are over interpreting the lessons that it teaches. If all you intend to do is to reprint a scanned image at it current size or smaller, or if you intend to use it only in electronic form, then yes. If you intend to magnify the image in print, then your statement is an overreach. An image scanned at 1200 dpi gives a lot more headroom for magnification than one scanned at 300 dpi. This is particularly an issue with monochrome images as opposed to color.

I do not believe that you are correct. The print simply does not have the inherent information to give you more detail. It is a limitation of the photo paper itself. Scanning at a higher resolution will oversample the image, but it cannot create more detail than is present in the original. From what I have seen... 300dpi is about all there is in a photograph. Even the lunatic fringe generally agree that 400 is overkill from what I have seen.

It is completely different if you scan a negative which has a lot more information than the print.

/Jim

 

[matteusclement]

lets remember WHY i am scanning that high

I am scanning that high because I need all the data I can to RESTORE these photos. Right now I am able to go in and clone spots that allow me to repair other locations. It gives me a larger sample area. Once I have repaired them, then I will print them and there is no such thing as too much data for printing.

thank you for all your help. I will try to remember to post some results once I am done. Some of these photos are pretty FUBAR tho....

 

[Ruahrc]

I think the kind of print also matters. A high quality fine art print made direct from a large format negative probably has way more than 300ppi in it, as opposed to a photo made from a C47 processing lab which probably tops out at around 300ppi.

Ruahrc