I don't think I sent this as it was still in the drafts folder. Apologies
if it's a duplicate.
Anthony wrote:
> The publisher didn't whine about receiving a photo
> scanned by yourself?
As I mentioned, my brother produces the magazine for the AUF. In order
to reduce costs, he does everything up to the point of printing. AFAIK
he delivers a PDF to the printers and they print it. The printers complained
about being supplied with RGB scans, so we have to convert everything to
CMYK. That leads to some colour matching issues but the process seems to
be adequate.
> I was under the impression (although it is perhaps a myth
> nowadays) that a fair number of publishers want to do their
> own scans (and I have been asked for a transparency on at
> least one occasion, which I refused).
This is probably still true of a lot of big publishers. I know Tony Sleep
has mentioned it. I'd like to think that more publishers are realising
the benefit of accepting scans rather than have he added expense themselves.
> A 2700-dpi scan is good enough for anything short of a
> poster-sized publication, though (and even for that it
> may well suffice), even if some publishers refuse
> to recognize this.
I don't know how true this is. The printers demand 300dpi, and scanning
at 2700ppi off 35mm film won't give 300dpi printed at much more than A4,
especially if you have to crop. I've printed a 2700dpi scan to A3 on my
Epson 1160 from a colour neg that dates back to 1980. It looks fine to
me! But the output of the Epson tends to blur pixellation anyway. The
printer's own artifacts are more obvious than those from the image.
Having said all that, I'm reasonably convinced that a 2700dpi scan should
resize to A3 or more and print well on any medium. It just depends on how
picky you are. :)
Rob
Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
