Laurie...
Thanks for the response.... sorry for my delay in replying... but i'm 5.5
hours ahead of GMT...
"LAURIE SOLOMON" wrote:
> If she plans to reproduce the publicity photos in any sort of quantity for
> distribution, she would definitiely need the file, since there is a
definite
> loss in quality if one generates a copy negative off a digital print and
> this is magnified if one then attempts to produce offset prints of either
> an analog photographic print from that copy negative or from the digital
Nope... as said i was sending her the file....
> print. Having said this, I would say keep the files in RGB since whoever
is
> going to print or reproduce the image can do the conversions to grayscale
as
> needed.
Bob Geoghegan had a good reason for scanning in B & W... i've always scanned
in RGB... will try the B & W as an original scan and see if there's any
improvement.
>Unless there is any possibility that the image is going to be
> cropped with the cropped area being enlarged to 8x10, I would use 300 dpi
>for the 8x10 image; if there is a possibility that the image is going to be
> cropped with the cropped area being enlarged to 8x10, then I would make
the
> file 600 -1200 dpi for the 8x10 image. In both cases, I would try to
avoid
> engaging in any upward interpolation (e.g. a 300ppi scan being used to
> produce a greater than 300 dpi 8x10 image or a scan of a 35mm negative at
> say 1200 ppi optical resolution for enlargement to 8x10 at 300 dpi). If
> the dpi of the 8x10 sized image in the file has a larger dpi than 300 dpi,
> the person doing the printing can always down sample it with less negative
> consequences than if they had to upsample it. I would advise against
giving
> her high bit files (16bit depth) since if she is not doing the
photoshoping
> herself or is giving the file to someone who is not going to convert the
> file to 8 bit she will have problems getting the files reproduced in that
> most printers use 8 bit files and cannot deal with high bit files without
> being converted.
Scanning 35mm at 4000dpi... 8 x 10 works out to about 470 dpi (with any
resampling). It's being cropped downwards... meaning 8 x12 cropped to 8 x
10. What i'll do is send her 300dpi versions as well as the unresampled
versions so that the service bureau has the flexibility. Keeping in mind
that the minimum work they have to do will save her bucks.
> If she is not savvy and if she is planning to do quantity printing, I
would
> suggest giving the file to a service bureau, a printing press printer, or
a
> digital photolab to make the reproductions. Let them put the file into
the
> proper shape for their equipment's needs since not all equipment has the
> same requirements. To be on the safe side, I would tend to start with a
300
> dpi resolution, Adobe RGB, 1998 profiled, RGB file containing the
properly
> cropped and sized for printing to 8x10 image. This would meet the
minimum
> requirements of many of the direct digital to photographic laser and LED
> printers, it will work with desktop lasers and inkjets; and it would meet
> the basic offset press requirements.
Right... thanks for the suggestions.... the only question that remains
really now is whether to go the RGB or Grayscale route... unfortunately, i
have no way of checking that out from here... meaning who she finally goes
to will have different equipment to what's available in Calcutta... maybe
i'll just give her RGB and Grayscale files....?????
Cheers...
SD
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ().
Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 25/12/2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
