Hi Lynn,
I'm not going to agree with you on this one. I regularly scan either prints
or slides for clients web sites (sometimes both for the same site). The
jpeg output is the final stage and all the prior work is done on
uncompressed PSD's. Never scan and output from the scanner as a jpeg.
Always output as an uncompressed file to work on in your image editing
program. Either as a PSD in Photoshop (PSP in PaintShop Pro, etc..) or as a
TIF.
The scans are based on two factors. Outer pixel dimensions and pixels per
inch. The files are saved as PSD's from the flatbed and Tif's from my
Polaroid SS4000. I scan prints at 300 PPI and slides at 1200 PPI. I try to
not have much variation in file size of the images prior to working on
them. I like that size to be between a 5 and 10 megabyte file. It leaves me
more than enough elbow room to do any manipulation needed.
In other words, the actual content can be anything, from an intricate image
to a blank canvas. The file size is determined by the pixels per inch at
whatever the actual horizontal by vertical pixel dimensions are.
Then I manipulate and resize to 450 pixels by 72 pixels per inch. NOW THE
RESULTING JPEG IS DEPENDENT UPON THE IMAGE CONTENT. Solid areas compress
better than areas of texture. This is where the file size of the jpeg is
dependent upon picture content. NOT UPON METHOD OF SCANNING.
The only way you might experience the differences you are referring to is
if you are scanning to a jpeg output which creates an imprecise workflow
and inconsistent results.
Larry
>Have you noticed that JPEGed flatbed image files are considerably smaller
>than the same pictures scanned with your filmscanner?
***********************************
Larry Berman
***********************************
