The DPI You Should Be Scanning Your Paper Photographs

Absolutely! The V600 is a “workhorse” scanner that’s been around this long for a good reason. 😉

Like you I have a Canon 9000F but when Cannon no longer provided drivers for my MacBook I had little or no choice but upgrade my Scanner to Epson V600

Patti, yes, I think you’ll be fine. As long as this scanner is still working on your current computer and you’re still producing good scans on it, then you should find that the course lessons in my membership program will work just fine for it. I think you’ll find the quality of your scanner compares very closely to what Epson offers with the Epson Perfection V600 Photo.

Excellent, Andrea! Glad to hear you found this article JIT — just in time. 😉

Thanks for your suggestion, Michael! Yup, the Epson FF-680W is a nice little compact scanner, and I do recommend it for many people that can afford it. To make up for its compromises, it has several benefits that are very enticing for those with more “basic goals” with their photo collections. If you bought for those features, you’ll likely love it. 🙂

However, the more advanced your goals are, and the more types of photos you have in your collection (such as a variety of small and thin fragile prints, thicker Polaroids or film like slides and negatives), the less I would recommend it to people to do the heavy lifting for the bulk of your entire photo collection.

Epson basically took a scanner meant for scanning (office) documents and then worked with the software so that it could also do a decent job scanning photographs as well. And unfortunately, to get an image sensor in an area in that tight of space, they had to settle on a lesser quality type of sensor instead of the high quality ones they are able to fit in their “roomier” Perfection flatbed line of scanners. The compromises to obtain this type of speed while scanning will be a sticking point for a lot of people with mid to advanced level goals who are particular about how they want their scanned collection to turn out.

Congrats on getting a start on your photo collection. Cheers to your new project, Michael!

Are you using the scanners supplied software to scan? My HP scanner has an option to scan multiple photos on one page and crops them itself – it first of all scans a quick preview image and then suggests photos it has found – you can edit the areas or add new areas to any photos it hasn’t detected correctly, it then scans each individually. This scanner is about 10 years old and the software of similar age, so I would of preumed new scanners have such a feature?

Hope this helps

Chris, glad to hear you found this article helpful!

When you are scanning in your slides and negatives, you will have the option of how “large” your images will display on your computer monitor based on what settings you choose in your scanning software. It’s actually a mathematical equation (that thankfully you won’t have to know 😉 ) using data such the size of your image area and various settings such as the DPI, that will determine how large in pixels your scanned image will turn out to be. So, really it’s just a matter of choosing the settings based on your long term goals for your collection.

But, the simple answer is yes, if your settings are adequate, your images will appear to be much larger on your screen than the true to life size of your film frames. If you are unsure of how to set all of these settings on your scanner, be sure to check out my membership program. I have step-by-step, really in-depth tutorials that will teach you everything you need to know before you start.

What you really don’t want to happen is get mostly through scanning your collection and decide you’ve scanned using the wrong settings.

Cheers to your new scanning project!

That’s a good catch. I certainly didn’t mean to lead anyone on. You’re right, I should not have added “pixels per inch” in the results end of my equation near the end of this post. I’ve just corrected it so it’s clear I meant the results were in the number of pixels and not “pixels per inch”.

And that’s an interesting idea to relate the final pixel resolution of a scanned image to the equivalent of the megapixel count of a digital camera. It would be helpful to some, especially photographers.

Though I suspect, since the most popular and only camera many or even most people use today is their smart “telephone” in their pocket, the importance of being aware of what a megapixel is anymore is very small. I’m not really sure the general population really relates to the term “megapixels” anymore. The workflow of taking photos on a smartphone really makes knowing how many megapixels their photos are a thing of the past. Most people who wouldn’t identify themselves as “photographers,” probably were only aware of the term megapixel back years ago when they were at a store trying to decide between two point and shoot cameras, and they were using the number of megapixels as a gauge of which was better for their money.

But still, let me think about it. This post is due for a revision, so I could possibly include this idea.

By the way, I never said in this article I was terrible at math.

Fantastic Axel. Happy to hear this post helped you so much. Good luck on your project! Go for it!

Just remember… baby steps. It’s all about one photo at a time. And before you know it, you will have scanned thousands of them!

Hi Anne. I have used some self-feeding scanners. And I am not completely opposed to them. I think there’s a place for them in some people’s workflow. I generally just don’t gravitate to them, because of the results you most often get from many of them.

Many if not most of them, cut corners to make the process cheap and fast. They use the cheap quality scanning mechanisms that are required in order to fit into these tiny machines, and therefore they don’t produce near the quality of a flatbed. I spoke with a representative from a very well-known company, and he said their feed-scanner model has such a “noisy” scan (read as bad quality in the simplest of terms), they had to write new software to try and digitally enhance the image once the scan has been completed, so that it looked decent when compared to the results of a flatbed.

And then there is the issue with many of your prints not feeding through straight so you have to redo them. Or they get cropped and part of your image gets cut off. Or with all of the ones I’ve tried, you get white streaks (lines) through a fair portion of your scans attributed to the fact that your prints won’t be perfectly clean going in, and the rollers and the scanning optics inside are not immune to a buildup from this foreign residue.

And then the scary part, is you have to consider the fact that any one of your prints going in, is susceptible to a jam. I don’t care what they tell you. It is possible. And a jam could mean damage to your irreplaceable one of a kind print — especially the really old thin ones. You can be really careful and try and watch and guide them as they feed through, but eventually, you might take your eye off one and it might go in a bit crooked and the power of the motors might bunge it all up.

So again, I’m not opposed to sheet-fed scanners. And when I find one I really like, I will definitely list it with the other products I recommend on my resources page. But generally, I like to focus my attention on what I know will give people great results consistently. Most people only want to do this project once, and be extremely happy with the results. Some might be happy with an inexpensive but decent sheet-fed scanner in the $400-$600 range (higher-end sheet-fed photo scanners are $1500+). Others though, are willing to put in a bit more time to get better results from their time. The trick Anne, if you go the flatbed route, is to use the time while the flatbed is working, to do something else with your scanned files that you will be doing at some point anyway. Then it won’t feel like you are just “sitting by your scanner all day.” 😉

Happy to hear! Thanks for letting me know you enjoyed it Serafina.

Where’s this 100 word article you speak of Nils? I’d like to check it out. You’ve had about 3 years to work on it…

Hi Aleca. Do you have the negatives to the photos you wish to enlarge? If you do, I would certainly scan the negatives instead and use that as your master image to produce your enlargements from. Unless it’s okay that the images appear really soft (blurry).

The problem you will experience is all of the image quality you need, at that possible size (16×24 or 32×48), is really being stored in the negative. Once a 4×6 print is made from the negative, there’s much less image quality (detail) stored in this version. Most agree that a 4×6 scanned and then printed, will really only yield a decent 8×10 or so.. anything larger than that, and it’s really pushing how sharp the printed image is going to come out. The detail that is there in a 4×6, is really only between 100-400 dpi or so. Above 400 dpi (especially in older color prints from generates past), this extra DPI is really just helping to make the image size larger — but probably not any more detailed because it’s just not there in the print to begin with.

It probably is your scanner. For most paper photos any new scanner will work. You want the fastest one. If it is film, I would probably not use a flatbed scanner. The photos will never look as good as even a cheap smartphone photo from a flatbed scan, maybe 6 megapixel. A good film scanner can get 20-25 megapixel images (or more). But you are talking a 400-500$ investment and learning how to use scanning software. If the film was mostly done by a hobbyist, a flatbed will be ok. If it was slide film taken and processed by someone into photography with good lenses, a film scanner would be the better way to go. You’ll need a good computer for the large file sizes and resolution. Plustek and Pacific Image are the few companies that still make slide film scanners. I haven’t been impressed with the All-In-One scanners but they might be getting better.

For the most part, I completely agree. There is a point where it’s high enough, or even too high. You don’t want to scan prints with high DPI’s meant for film. But, your sentiment, basically that it’s better to scan high and be safe, than scan low and later be sorry… is something I also agree with.

Miso, I think you’re really onto something as well. I kind of gave up buying the latest and greatest home “inkjet” scanner as well for printing photos. This isn’t to say they aren’t great, but, just keeping up with technology, and making sure I had full ink cartridges… became too much when I wanted to print out a fair amount of prints. I too really enjoy just ordering them from my favorite place and letting them take care of making them look great with the newest tech.

And thank you so much for enjoying my website and wishing to share it with your friends. I really appreciate that Miso. :beer: Cheers!

Well hi Debra — you are so so so welcome! Makes my day to hear this helped you out so much. Happy Memorial Day weekend! :coffee:

Hi Patrick. If you’re only goal is to scan the photos exclusively to display at HD television size, then it makes sense that scanning for more pixels isn’t too beneficial at all. But, if you also want to extract out as much quality as possible from some of your higher quality prints, and if you want to preserve higher quality and higher resolution images for other purposes, then it makes sense to me to scan a bit higher and archive those version away. Then using a photo managing program, you can select all of the photos you want to use for an HD slide show, and export them out selecting “1920 pixels” as a maximum width setting (1080 for portrait shots) and the software will produce a second set all reduced the the pixel size you currently need.

Some day, 4K monitors will be as standard in people’s homes as HD televisions are now. So, your time might be well spent just scanning a bit higher to eek out any additional/potential quality and resolution during the scan.

And yes, for really poor quality prints, I’m not suggesting scanning higher will achieve higher quality digital files. There is only so much information in that print to begin with. But, overall, the DPI settings I recommend work well globally as a setting where one doesn’t have to constantly be worrying about which DPI is the best. Sometimes the DPI is overkill to extract image quality, other times that extra DPI is very useful when there is that added quality in the print.

You’re so welcome Heather. 🙂 I don’t think you will be disappointed if you scan with 600. It just gives you more resolution later to work with.

Hi Chris! Your other option, which it doesn’t sound like are doing unless I misread, is to use iPhoto/Photos using a referenced library. Have you read the post I made about referencing photos in iPhoto? There’s a setting in the preferences that controls where photos are stored when you import photos — either inside or outside of the library file. So, depending on how that setting is set right before you import the files, determines where the photos are stored. So, one library file can have photos that have some managed photos, and some photos that are being referenced.

https://www.scanyourentirelife.com/iphoto-imported-photos-iphoto-library-managed-referenced/

So, you could start over with a new iPhoto or even Photos library… and then import all of your photos (again) but set to referenced. This way, you wouldn’t have to have your collection in two separate places, taking up twice the space. (Though, backups are always good… so I just mean that your primary collection location is only in one place.. you aren’t managing two separate collections of the same images as your primary)

As far as an offsite backup facility like CrashPlan or Backblaze (the one I use), it would take some time to download an entire library file. It’s possible though, given a tragic situation like this, you could open up the package contents on their servers (like you can on yours), and go into the folder and pick out individual master images and download them separately. It’s “advanced” and I wouldn’t suggest very many people try this. But, in a desperate situation when you need something downloaded quick, this could be an option.

Alternatively, you could also pay to have a hard drive of your backup sent to you. I know Backblaze does this for a fairly reasonable price. (You get to keep the drive)

Hello anon74. I have also followed this site and benefited from Curtis’ experience and that of others who share their experience. Just to say what I think re your question. My family history scanning project was not quite as large as yours, just 1500 paper photos. And I have scanned most of them at (only) 300 dpi and as .jpg. I did substantial testing with various resolutions and settled on 300 as the best compromise. My thinking is that the future is digital and I too have no plans to make further prints. If one of my inheritors wants to make, say, large prints or something, the original photos I have are still extant and will be as long as one of them keeps the albums after I am gone, and they can re-scan to their heart’s content. I have carefully identified the who, where, when information for all the digital images and their original print (with a printed label on the back of the photo). All the paper prints are now in plastic pocket pages in albums so folks should be able to find what they want. So I did the hard part (I am the last of my generation in my family who would know most of this info). I have no plans to re-scan these again myself.

One more thought: you said you edited yours ‘2 or 3 times’. When I did my (actually limited) editing on the .jpg images, I made sure I resaved the photo in a lossless manner. Each time you resave a .jpg it can lose some quality (depending on what you did in the edit). I use IrfanView which has options to try to retain the original jpg quality, and they look fine.

Hope this was helpful!

Marty,
I do this when I am in a hurry–an iPhone 6 works quite well. One problem I find is in the reflection–maybe using non-reflective glass might solve this? Another problem is avoiding my shadow. Scanning seems to work better for me.

Chris

Hi Jackie. Yes, raising the DPI will scan to be a larger image. Your Canon looks capable. Max. Resolutions Optical:2400 x 4800 dpi7 Interpolated:19,200 x 19,200 dpi7. Try increasing the DPI and see if it changes the results.

Jackie, when you say ‘they came out’, are you referring to the size you saw on your computer screen or the size you saw when you eventually printed the photo? Most scanners have a setting to either automatically recognize the actual size of the original on the scanner glass, or allow you to set the size of the photo to be scanned.

Hi Julie — thank you for the wonderful compliments! Happy to hear I have helped to motivate you begin your project. And I’m with you. I think my collection was a little over $7,000 to be scanned by a scanning service when I originally priced them out with the higher DPI and TIFF files that I really wanted. That’s when I decided I was going to tackle this project on my own.

I do have a preference with scanners, and have found a line of flatbeds that are easy to use, and have a range of prices and features to match anyone’s collection and budget. I actually just created a 7-page Ebook that will tell you my Top 6 Favorite Tools I use, and my scanner recommendations are on the first page. You can download this free from this page here:

https://www.scanyourentirelife.com/my-top-favorite-tools/

And beyond the scanner, maybe there are some other items in the guide that can help make your project a little easier on you. 🙂

Hi Jamie, so glad you like the website.

I actually think if you follow reasonable DPI settings, such as the ones in the chart above per the given print size, you won’t experience file size bloat at all whether you use 24bit or 48bit setting (sometimes referred to as 8bit and 16bit [per color channel]). Almost every computer today can easily handle a 75MB (more or less) file without any issue. Most of my prints even at 48bit come in around 50MB’s a piece, slides a bit more.

Not every print has 48bits worth of tonal range, and not every scanner has good enough optics to make the best use of capturing this many bits. But, if you have advanced goals for your collection, and plan on doing restoration work on your photos to improve their look, and your photo scanner is high quality, then it can’t hurt to scan with this many bits. You can always down-convert to 24bits later if you need to (but not the other way around).

Hi Elise. Try not to be overwhelmed. If it helps, focus on the real goal which is just to have your entire collection digitized. Once you have finished scanning all of your photos, and if you still have the energy and desire, then consider going back and re-scanning photos you wished you had scanned another way.

Done is better than perfect.

At least, this is the quote I hear I’m supposed to start living by. 😉

I’ve run into the same issue with my prints with all of my school photos and Olan Mill’s family portrait photos. I think it’s fair to say all of the printing has the same “dots per inch” printed on the respective photo paper, which means the 8″x10″ has more dots (of information) provided to you. If you’re only scanning one version, I would definitely scan the 8″x10″ over the wallet unless there is visible damage to it.

I personally take it a step further and scan a representation of all sizes — scanning the best physical quality of each. I scan the 8″x10″ and at least one of each of the other sizes I find so that I am taking advantage of archiving options for the future. For example, there may be an imperfection in the 8″x10″ that you didn’t notice in haste while scanning. Having another copy saved gives me peace of mind knowing that I have it “just in case.”

If the thought of maintaining multiple versions makes your eyes roll, and assuming they are all the originals (not reproductions) printed the same way at the same time, by the same printers on the same paper stock etc., then just scan the largest size you have.

Yup Gabe, that scanner will be great for that job! And good plan on adjusting the DPI depending on the size of your photo.

Whatever settings you decide on, keep a written list so that you can continue to use these same settings for another day later on. It’s amazing how quick you will forget what you set your scanner at if you don’t write things down. 😉

Personally, I wouldn’t use a multi-function for scanning. That’s just me. Here you can read about bit differences: http://www.shomler.com/30bit.htm I am using Silverfast. I like it and think the company knows their stuff. The version I have came with my scanner. It doesn’t auto crop and save the images after scanned, but I think it is available in upgrade available for purchase. I pre-scan multiple photos – select (outline) each and then batch scan. You could distribute them amung hard drives, or flash drives, or even on the internet (cloud) – like Microsoft OneDrive etc…

Stella, are you sure that’s the right model number? I couldn’t find it on HP’s website, or the internet. I’d be surprised if it could only scan at 300 dpi in today’s world. Their lowest end models available (8000 series) show up to 1200×1200 dpi.

Curtis, please correct me if I’m wrong – Calum, try thinking of DPI as a type of zoom. The higher the DPI used to scan an image, the larger the outcome. If the picture is too small, and scanned with an aggressive DPI setting, the picture will distort.

My question might not have been clear enough. My question was not about the concept of DPI itself, but rather about the fact that Curtis recommended a higher DPI for smaller prints. For example, he recommends 1000 DPI for 2.5×3.5″, and 600 DPI for 5×7″. I’m wondering why he makes this recommendation.
Before I start scanning (and I’d better start some time soon…), I want to check the DPI which I should be using, to make sure I don’t make a mistake on 100’s of prints. And I want to understand the criteria for Curtis’s recommendation, so I can judge for myself.

Here are some possibilities which come to my mind:

A) If a smaller print generally has more detail per square inch than a larger printer, then this is certainly a good reason to use a larger DPI for smaller prints.

B) If small and large prints generally have the same level of detail, then there are two possibilities:

B.1) Scanning at 1000 DPI is overkill for small prints, as this is beyond the level of detail actually contained in the original print. This would mean that 1000 DPI is not capturing any more detail than 600 DPI, so it would be pointless to be scanning at 1000 DPI.

B.2) Scanning at 1000 DPI for small prints captures actual detail in the prints.
In this case, I am presumably losing some potential detail when scanning my larger prints, because I’m using a lower DPI which does not capture all of the detail.
There can be some valid reasons to take this approach of using a lower DPI for larger prints. For example:
1) Using a higher DPI on larger prints results in larger file sizes – I think about 2.77 times bigger. For bigger prints, this can be quite significant, especially if you are using TIFFs.
2) For smaller prints, 600 DPI does not allow you to subsequently print at 8×10″. Using 1000 DPI allows you to do this. For larger prints, 600 DPI is sufficient for subsequently printing at 8×10″, so the same issue does not exist for larger prints.

So I’m wondering which of A, B.1 or B.2 is the reason for Curtis’s recommendation to use a higher DPI for smaller prints.
Or is there some other reason that I’ve missed?

I don’t think it means you have to rescan all of your photos that were scanned for you and saved as a .JPG file. As a purest who is teaching people how to secure as much quality as possible from our photos as each of our abilities and hardware allows us, I suggest for people to save as an uncompressed .TIFF file when given the choice because it rules out having any quality being tossed out from the process of compression.

.JPG and .TIFF are both very viable formats to save your photos, they just compliment two types of separate goals — one more for those with basic goals (“Well that looks good enough to me!“), and one for people with more advanced goals (“I can’t stand the thought of any image quality loss with my photos!“).

If it makes you feel any better, know that most scanning services like you sent your photos to scan and save them as .JPG files with all of their basic packages, and you will have to pay more for each scan if you want it saved out as a .TIFF file. For most of their customers, .JPG files offer the easiest file format for them to do whatever they want with it without any other knowledge of their computer or software on it.

For example, if all scanning services scanned in 48-bit uncompressed .TIFF file, and sent their customers these 50-80 MB images for all of their analog photos, it’s very possible their customer support numbers might start to light up with people wondering why they can’t directly post these massive files onto Facebook!

But, for those inclined to learn a couple more steps in the archival workflow, the uncompresseed .TIFF offers a whole lot more room to store and edit your master images with the highest amount of quality and detail as possible.

If you still feel this company did a horrible job with this batch of photos, and you will be mad at yourself for not taking the time to archive these photos as high quality .TIFF files, my personal suggestion (and opinion) would be for you to scan the rest of your collection from here on out and save them as uncompressed .TIFF files. (I keep saying uncompressed because there are versions of .TIFF that save as compressed — so if you have the option, you want to make sure you have it set as uncompressed). Then, when you are finished scanning the rest of your collection and you’re done, THEN if you still want to rescan the first photos you saved as .JPG, then rescan them then.

The most important thing is to get digital copies of all of your analog photos as soon as possible and then back them up preferably in more than one physical location (Ask anyone who’s suffered from fire or flood damage in their home). So, by finishing the scanning first, you’re putting the longevity of your photo collection first, before your personal goals of having all of them saved at the highest quality.

Why yes, your Epson v600 does have the ability to scan film — slides and negatives. This truly makes the scanner stand out from cheap all-in-one printer/scanners that can’t handle these transparencies. I haven’t exactly done a post yet on scanner DPI’s for film like I did this one for prints. But, I do have a Q&A post about scanning negatives that should answer the question for you quite nicely. 😉

Q&A: What’s the Best DPI or Resolution to Scan Your Film Negatives?

Why thanks Paul — I really appreciate those kind words. :coffee:

In some respects, I think it’s just a matter of settling on a ppi that you won’t want to look back and think, “Man I wish I had actually done it at xxx dpi on my scanner instead.” And that can be tough to know for sure. But, in my mind, drive space should have nothing to do with the equation anymore now that expense for a roomy drive isn’t an issue.

Instead, I think it really should be about finding that line between having a high enough resolution to be able to do with your digital images as you wish later (blowups, extreme crops etc) and not going with too high of a DPI where your are starting to notice the textures of the paper coming through with prints for example, or too much grain in the film stock showing up in your images when you scan film.

So glad to be of help to you. Cheers!

When in Professional Mode. See Selecting the Scan Resolution section in link above.

Hi Dawn, I did a quick search. Looks like your scanner uses Epson Scan software? If yes, there are options to change the ‘Destination’ settings. https://files.support.epson.com/htmldocs/pr349p/pr349pug/scan1_5.htm#S-00700-00500-00400

I’d imagine “target size” is Output, so it’d be a combination of both actual size and what your intent for future use is.

I applaud you for thinking this through so carefully and with such concern for the monitors of the nearby future. I myself am lusting after the thought of owning a couple 4k monitors soon, and know I will immediately be disappointed how small certain things like low resolution images are going to look. So, I’m with you in the thoughts of how to anticipate this desire for an adequate amount of pixels.

If these are working specs the Smithsonian uses to archive their cherished works, then I certainly don’t want to be the one that stands up and says they are wrong. And I’m sure in most cases, the items they are archiving probably deserve the most careful and highest quality of preservation that money can buy.

That being said and considered, I feel I can safely add that the consensus of everyone else I read up on before I chose how I wanted to scan my photographs, all felt a much lower DPI for those image sizes was much more suitable. Between 3000 and 4000 pixels is a pixel count on the longest side that I’ve read often. This is a bit more conservative than your 6000 pixel route.

One of the guys I read up from when I started was a guy named Ctein — yes, just Ctein. In his book “Digital Restoration from Start to Finish,” he states “There’s no harm in scanning at unnecessarily higher resolutions, but it expands our file size dramatically.”

I don’t think drive space is an issue at all anymore. You can probably scan almost any family’s entire photo collection at 48-bit and a really high DPI and get it to fit on today’s 4 TB drives (And 6-8 TB’s are already here if you’ve got the money!) Nor do I think we should scan low quality just because our computer we are currently using is ancient and runs slow. We are scanning for the future, and computers are only getting faster and hard drives are only getting more spacious for less and less money.

I think one of the important things though to weigh into your decision which numbers to use, is the fact that scanning at a DPI higher than a certain point usually won’t get you any more detail from a print. Certain black and white prints hold more than many color ones, but overall many prints are are of such poor quality that 600 dpi – 800 dpi is about the point where you won’t be able to extract any more out. Some will be even lower — possibly down to 300 dpi. Film will carry more details than a large print. And in the same manner, a large print will usually carry more detail than a smaller print. So, as long as you understand higher DPI at some point doesn’t mean better quality — more details… sharper etc.

But, this doesn’t mean that going higher doesn’t have it’s benefits — as you’ve already realized and pointed out yourself. Going higher certainly gives you greater chances of being able to print out an 8×10 photo from a smaller print with less pixelation. And know there are ways to digitally enlarge an image inside photo editing programs without loosing much to any quality if done correctly. So in the future, viewing images on a 4k+ monitor may have easy “settings” that will enable us to easily view them larger on the screen without sacrificing that nice sharp look.

Overall, the real concern I think we all should have is making sure we’ve “harvested” all of the detail from the source (our film or prints) to begin with so that we are starting from the best place possible when manipulating them digitally later.

Downsides for scanning really high for you might be hardware limitations. If you’re going to scan that high of a DPI, you really should be sure you are using a scanner that can optically achieve these without resorting to “digitally blowing” them up (interpolating). I don’t see a point of scanning and saving from an interpolated range of dpi’s knowing that digitally blowing up your image is something that is achievable in every image manager/editor after the fact.

And also, you will need to experiment with scanning your photo collection this high to see if at some point, you are starting to record too much of the detail of the print (or slide/negative) itself. What I mean by this is are you starting to see too much of the fibers that make up the paper stock in the print, or the “noisy” film grain coming through too much in your film. I have some old bumpy prints from the 70’s that I find often look better scanned at a lower DPI because it softens out these harsh physical anomalies in the image. So, do some testing and zoom into your scanned images a bit and compare a lesser DPI scan to the higher one and see if your are content with the differences in their details extracted from the imperfections of the source.

The lower bit rate issue is a bit more troubling for me to recommend you use in a “globally used” workflow because you obviously have advanced goals for your collection and by scanning at 24-bits (8-bits per channel), you are eliminating the possibility of capturing that extra bit of color differences in your photos that do have that extra bit of range. Not all photos will have it, but I like to scan all of mine at 48-bits so that that extra data is always there when I’m doing my restoration work on the photo later. You can always down covert the data later to 24-bits if you want or need to, but you can’t get that information later without redoing all of the scans. Just something to think about.

You’re so welcome Dawn! So glad to hear this has given you peace to carry on with your workflow! Cheers! :coffee:

Oh thank you! I really appreciate hearing that. Especially after someone left a comment one day that I wrote too much in this article and he didn’t want to have to read through it all just to get to the good part at the end — the “Cliff Notes” chart I provided. 😉

So thank you for taking time out of your day to let me know you enjoyed it. :coffee:

Hi Lindsay. I could be wrong, but I believe the 72dpi that you are seeing in Photoshop probably correlates to the dpi of the document (size) that you are building, not the dpi that was used to produce the scanned image. I know, it’s very tricky, and just plum complicated at times.

Here’s an example that might help you, if my assumption above is true.

If you take a normal sized photo that you scanned at like 600dpi, it might now have the a resolution of 3500×2300 pixels. If you take this into Photoshop and then you set the “document size” to display this image as 72dpi, then it will take all of those pixels in that 3500×2300 resolution photo, and will lay them out, displaying them at 72 dots per inch. This will create a document (canvas size) that is approximately 48 inches by 32 inches. (Basically a poster sized printout if your printer can print this big of a piece of paper)

Now, if you take that same resolution image, and set your document size in Photoshop to have a much denser dpi, like 300dpi, then it will display (or use up) more of those pixels in each inch. So the math works out that the document size will be a lot smaller — 11.5 inches by 7.5 inches (approximately), since you are using up more of the dots in each and every inch. (It’s much denser)

So, if I am not mistaken, the 72 you are seeing in Photoshop isn’t the scanned image’s resolution, but the dpi setting of the document that you are creating that is made up USING the image that has a resolution that was created using a DIFFERENT DPI setting that you set when it was scanned.

Does any of this make more sense of it all for you? Or are you even more confused now? :-/

Hi Stacey. The Fujitsu ScanSnap line is really nice. I have an older model — the S500 — and use it all the time to scan my documents. The OCR function is tremendous how you can later search your PDF files for text.

I believe how we should scan our photo collections depends on what our goals are. The the more basic the goals, the more compromises we can make during the scanning, labeling and editing process. But those with advanced goals, or those who think they or anyone else in their family may eventually have advanced goals should treat the entire process with more care and with greater quality to ensure you have more options along the way.

I would consider scanning photos in a fast document scanner to be fairly low and down in the “basic goals” scale. I haven’t actually tried scanning photos with my S500, but if I tried, I would be surprised if the quality was even as good as an Epson V300 (entry level) flatbed scanner. Fast is normally isn’t a good thing when it comes to image quality on a consumer level scanner if when is important. This saying probably applies: “Your photos can be scanned fast, cheap and with high quality…. but you can only have 2 of these, not all three.”

I just watched their promotional video on the website for this scanner, and they don’t even show off scanning prints, which tells me they aren’t really pushing this model of scanner for this purpose — even though they are proud of this GI chipset that apparently helps improve the quality of images.

Another reason this is for those with basic goals is that the scanner only seems to offer scanning to PDF of JPG. JPG is compressed, so your scanned images will automatically be saved with less detail than had they been able to be scanned and saved with a lossless format — like TIFF or even PNG. Those with more basic of goals for their collections may not have problems settling for JPG scans, but many others may not want to make that compromise with such a big (“one time only”) project like scanning ones entire photo collection.

Unless I am reading the Fujitsu page wrong, the specs show that it can scan up at 1200 dpi (excellent mode), but only in grayscale mode, which is black and white, not color. So, you are locked in at 600 dpi and lower (probably 300 dpi or 600 dpi) 600 DPI is adequate for many prints (like 4″x6″ etc). But, if you want to scan really small ones like wallet sized prints and really want a good archival scan, 1000 – 1200 DPI is usually a really good setting.

So, without trying this scanner out myself, I can’t say for sure how this scanner will work out for photos. Technology is amazing and is changing fast, so I don’t want to judge it for sure until I’ve seen what it can really do. But, I suspect if you really want good quality scans, with good tones from the lights to darks, where the images aren’t possibly cut off (if they get misaligned going through the scanner), you might want to consider using this just for documents. It might also be good for photo scans you just want to post on social networking sites like Facebook, or for other images where archival-quality isn’t excepted.

If it turns out the photos are only decent looking compared to a good flatbed, and you think you will be satisfied with that compromise, then this could be a cost-saving option for you.

And Stacey you said you feel the ix500 is gentle. My S500 is “strong.” The feeder pulls paper through fast and steady. So, maybe just in case, I would be very very careful sending delicate photos through a document scanner like this. I would be sure to use the “protective sheet” that probably comes with it that has has a clear page that covers the photo and protects its integrity as it goes through.

Hi Samantha. It’s kind of hard for me to give you a one-size-fits-all dpi setting because it all depends on the size of the original that you are scanning.

But, lets say you want take a 4×6 print and print out an enlargement at 24×36 (without enlarging the size inside of a photo editor). First, you need to figure out how much resolution you need to print at 300 dpi:

(24 * 300) by (36 * 300) = a resolution of 7200×10800

Now if you take the larger number, the 10800, we can figure out the minimum dpi we would need to scan it to achieve this number.

10800 / 6 = 1800 dpi

So, if I am not too tired right now, and am thinking clearly, 1800 would be the DPI you would need to scan your 4×6 print to have enough resolution to print it out that large. Now, this may not be the best method of scanning if this high of a DPI produces a scan that doesn’t look very good. Sometimes when you scan a print this high, you might see too much detail in the actual texture of the paper the image was printed on! So, you might want to just try one out and see how your scan looks. If it can handle going that high then go for it. If not, you might want to scan with a lower DPI and try and instead increase the “canvas” size of your image inside of an image editor.

Very cool Doug! A couple comments. imho Mac’s aren’t as significant as they once were due to the blurring and advancements made overall with technology of today. PC’s are just as capable, easily. I agree with using an Epson scanner, it’s the best decision I’ve made thus far (and I haven’t even started)! It (Epson Expression 11000XL), bundled with LaserSoft® Imaging SilverFast® Ai and IT8 Target is awesome! It allows me to actually create new, different perspective, photos from the original with the ability to pick and choose what gets scanned. It is remarkable.I’ve got the transparency lid, allowing me to scan slides/transparencies/negatives – I can zoom/scan selected areas + select resolution. Allowing more creativity along the way. My setup isn’t for everyone, and I’m fairly competent with graphics/technology. My last hardware purchase/suggestion is to invest in a 2HDD RAID1 solution (Caldigit VRmini 2 http://www.caldigit.com/VRmini2/ – hopefully available in July this year). The last thing anyone would want is to have your computer/hdd crash after nearly finishing the project. Poof, gone. Disaster recover should be highly considered. A simple RAID1 solution will create copies during the process and in the event of disaster (HDD failure), can be replaced and replicated.

Thanks Doug! I really appreciate the compliments of my post. I do try really hard to make my posts “evergreen” to the best of my ability. So, I’m thrilled to hear from people when something I have written years ago is still helpful to someone. :coffee:

Wow, you scanned and rescanned 300 photos like that — impressive! I think I could learn from you in this situation since I have pretty much taken on more of a “preset” DPI for my collection based on the size of the original and not really that of a sliding “experimental” one for each one. Did you find over time with your 300 photos that you didn’t really need to keep scanning each one higher to find the “sweet spot” — that there as consistency with certain sized prints? Or did you really discover that each one was unique and did in fact require individual experimentation to find the best dpi?

So great to hear my chart has filled the last void Tony! It’s been a couple weeks, are you any more motivated yet? :coffee:

When I am unmotivated, with anything, it’s usually because I sense a lot of stress (making hard decisions) or boredom ahead. What I do is I jump ahead an do a chunk of a part of the “project” or whatever it is, that is fun! So with scanning, if the amount of work ahead of you is way too daunting, that you don’t even want to get started, just grab a group of photos you love — even if they are completely out of any kind of order you thought you would scan in — and scan them!

So for instance, grab a chunk of your old photos where you were playing with your favorite toys of all time! Or ones from a vacation that you still think about to this day. Scan them and get them into your computer and your image manager of choice. Start to label them and add captions and maybe even do some color correcting if you are ready for that. Then maybe even email a couple of your favorites to family members and let them congratulate you for sharing such great memories. All of this will inspire you and will help you visualize what your collection is going to become some day and how fun and useful it’s going to be once it’s all together and in some kind of order.

10,000 photos to scan seemed like an impossibility when I started. But, doing 30 a day, within no time, I was in the thousands and I was seeing photos I’d never seen before. It really started to get fun!

Hi pinootie,

Have you written to me before — a long time ago? Your situation of moving to a humid island with mold on your prints sounds very familiar to me. Or it could just be someone else who happens to be in the same situation which is very possible as well.

To answer your first question, the reason to invest in a higher quality flatbed scanner is because I imagine in most situations, the more you pay the more likely you will get better quality hardware. When it comes down to it, a scanner is a camera on a motorized arm that photographs your photographs. The more you spend the more likely that all of these parts will do a better job at producing a higher quality scan. All in one printer/scanners probably do a decent job at scanning, but the money you spend on them also goes to pay for the part that prints, and faxes. And it’s likely, the scanner quality just has to be good enough to scan documents well, but not necessarily good enough to pull a lot of contrast in colors out of aging photographs.

It’s hard to say though without testing though whether your all-in-one is as good as a higher quality photo scanner. There are so many makes and models, and I don’t have access to enough scanners to test with to really come to a conclusion I feel safe standing on to tell people definitively. If you know someone with a nice scanner, I would take a couple photos and scan them on their scanner, and then scan it on your scanner (with the same settings) and compare the two by zooming in closely. See how they look side by side. Often cheaper scanners will show less detail in the “shadows” in darker places.

As far as the 6400 x 9600 example you gave. I think I mentioned this in the post here that most companies inflate their maximum dpi ranges to sound impressive to buyers who feel comfortable when buying items with the highest “number” of anything when comparing. (A car that goes 120 miles per hour must be better than one that can go only 100 miles per hour right?) When in actuality, these numbers in DPI are most often referring to the “interpolated” (fake and useless) numbers when scanning.

Have you ever zoomed into an image or a web page on a computer so far that all you are doing is making the pixels bigger and “fuzzier”? In the simplest of terms, this is what interpolating is doing. It’s just “zooming” in further than you should to make the numbers higher. You never want to scan (for archival purposes at least) higher than the optical resolution that your scanner will go up to. And often, this is 1200 dpi for average scanners. Which happens to be as high as you would really ever need to go for most prints. If you are scanning film, an area that is very small, then you need to go much higher, and better flatbed scanners that can scan film can do so.

Your second question… ah that’s the part where I knew I would confuse people. That’s why I listed out the mathematical equation there everyone could see how I came up with those numbers. So what I wrote was that most printers that you print photos out with on your computer, need up to about 300dpi of resolution (to print in high quality). So if you want to print an 8×10 at a printers 300dpi, you need a photo with a resolution of at least 2400 x 3000. You multiply 8 (the first number of 8×10, and the shorter size of the photo) by 300 and then the longer side, 10, by 300 and you get a scanned image with an image resolution of 2400 x 3000.

I think you are interpreting this number to mean this is the DPI in which you set your scanner to scan, and in actuality, this number is the resolution of the photo. Have you heard of people referring to their computer displays, or high definition televisions as being something like “1920×1080″? A common laptop screen resolution is 1366×768 (pixels). So in our case above, in order to print out a high quality photo, we need 2400 pixels high of resolution in our digital photo, and 3000 pixels wide, to have enough pixels to print 300 pixels per inch on our piece of photo paper.

So truly, if we were scanning an 8″x10” photo, 300 dpi is all that you may need to scan and have enough resolution to print a nice copy. But, in my chart, I went ahead and listed 600 dpi because I am conservative when it comes to archiving. I would rather tell you to scan a little bit higher than you need than tell you too low, and you regret it later. Some 8×10 photos, especially the b&w ones, have a lot of image detail in them, so scanning at a higher resolution (600dpi) in this case, could possibly help in pulling out more of that detail inside the photo.

I know all of this is complicated. In a perfect world, none of us wouldn’t need to know any of this, you could just hit a scan button and the computer does everything. In fact, one of my commenters on this post here told me I explained way too much, and all I should have really listed was the “cheat sheet” DPI chart at the end of the post. I think there are a lot of people out there that want me to “show my work” on how I came to the “answers,” so you can come to your own conclusions of how conservative or aggressive you want to be with your DPI settings. So, I am confident I did the right thing in this post. but, please don’t feel bad if this is still way too complicated for you. The most important thing is that you find the adequate/preferred DPI settings I’ve listed, or that you’ve found elsewhere that you feel comfortable with, and you close your eyes, take a deep breath, and just do it — scan your photos. It’s so easy to doubt yourself and never do it, and then you will never reap the benefits of having a complete digital collection.

Hope this helps you pinootie. Cheers!

Hi itsizzi,

You’re so welcome for the information. I’m glad to hear it’s helping you. :thumbs:

Yes, generally really small photos like the old “wallet” sized photos, I like to scan around 1000 dpi and up to 1200 if there’s a lot of detail in them — like some of the black and whites. And 600 is a great DPI overall for most others. My EpsonScan has a 720dpi preset that I use a lot too.

I have read in places before to scan at the highest resolution for everything in different places. Usually, they also specify though that you need to only scan at the highest “optical” resolution that the scanner will go up to (Often if the scanner literature says 1200×2400 dpi for example, the first number “1200” is the optical resolution). Do not scan any higher than this though using the digital resolutions. This is just blowing up the image digitally and you aren’t gaining anything from it. But, I think at some point, scanning at the highest optical dpi that your scanner will go up to doesn’t have any real advantages for most people.

You’re in a case where you are scanning for a class where you need to so specific things with them. If you really need to zoom in extremely tight and crop out an area and print it large for example, you require needs that an archived photo collection of thousands of photos may not require. For archiving photos, just scanning at a high enough resolution to get all the details you can pull from the photo, and then with enough pixels to print out a decent 8×10 is all most people might want to achieve from the scans on this massive scale.

You can go too high of DPI if 1) you need to use them right now on a computer that isn’t fast enough to deal with the large file sizes that it might produce. Your computer can really crawl to a halt if it’s an older model that can’t handle it. And 2) if your DPI is set so high that it starts picking up things in the photo that you don’t want to see when viewed really closely — like cropping in really tight later in post-processing. You might start to see the texture in the paper that the photo was printed on etc. At this point, you might want to scale back and scan at a lower DPI.

So itsizzi, just do some tests with scanning at different DPI’s if you will feel safer going higher and see how your photos look when you zoom in on them closely. Choose whichever DPI that will make you sleep better at night. Don’t have regrets. 🙂

Hi Curtis thank you for your reply.

I decided to go for the more expensive one in the end…..I am really happy with it, scans the old photos beautifully in just under a minute which I think is ok! Also prints photos really good quality photos which is a bonus!

Although I totally underestimated the work involved in doing a photo book, I’ve been at it for ages now…nearly there though!
Thanks again! 🙂

Hi Rolf! Congratulations on your plan to start scanning your collection! I want to be frank and admit you’ve pointed out a very embarrassing fault I currently have with my website, and that is I don’t have any proof one way or another whether a 10-year old flatbed scanner is as good as a new flatbed scanner. Or whether scanner model “X” is as good as model “Y.” Frankly, my excuse it that I don’t have the funds or time to do as good as a job of this as say a large company like CNET.com could do with all of their staff and financial resources.

But, the honest truth is that I could at least borrow or even buy a couple other scanners and just give them a try and see what I come up with with simple and basic testing. And I assure you I will be doing this sometime soon. But, I know that doesn’t help you right now as you want to move forward with your collection.

Your current scanner, even though it’s old in computer years, is still rated at 1200dpi. As long as that is an optical resolution and not interpolated (digitally zooming in), 1200 dpi is totally enough resolution to scan paper prints. In the chart I created at the bottom of this post, you will see that I never recommended a DPI higher than 1200. So, you are totally fine until you want to scan something that is tiny – I mean like as small as a frame of negative. And most people don’t have print photos THAT small.

Now a possible downside, other than speed as you pointed out (which isn’t an issue if you are patient and can do other things while it’s scanning), is that this is more of a multi-purpose scanner and was probably meant to scan paper documents just as much as paper photos. Flat-bed “photo” scanners like the current Canon and Epson line have models that are meant primarily to scan paper prints as well as film — slides and negatives. So, if you have any of those, you will need to buy a standalone dedicated film scanner, another flatbed capable of scanning film, or send them off to a scanning service. Additionally, a 10-year old scanner may not work on a computer running the latest operating system if Canon hasn’t updated the drivers.

But, if none of this is an issue, the only possibility you still may need to be concerned with is just if the camera system inside — the lens (optics) etc. — have improved a drastic amount in 10-years in a scanner at this price point of a scanner. And that’s hard to know without doing some direct comparison with that actual model. Maybe you could scan 1 or 2 photos in your scanner, and then scan the same images in a friend’s more recent scanner (with the same scanner settings set the same) and see if you can see any noticeable differences.

But, if deciding just from the specifications, 1200dpi is plenty to scan your paper prints with.

Hi Emma. It’s hard buying an all-in-one isn’t it? So much to know. So many specs that’s hard to compare and know what is the best printer/scanner for your.

In this case, when you are asking about scanning, I would just focus on the first set of numbers before the “x.” So the two scanners have a difference of 1200 dpi (cheaper model) vs 2400 dpi (more expensive). With these “all-in-one” printer/scanners, you aren’t able to scan slides and negatives like you can with the dedicated photo scanners with extra hardware features that allow for this. So, we are really just talking about scanning paper prints.

If you look in my chart at the bottom of this post here, you will see I scan all of my various prints sizes anywhere between 600 dpi and 1000 dpi… sometimes a little higher if they are tiny black & white prints (like wallet sized) where it seems there is a lot of image detail in them. But, just know that above 1200 dpi is really to scan tiny objects (like film) to “enlarge” them into a larger (higher) resolution in your digital file. For example when you are scanning slides, you want to scan anywhere between 2000-3000 dpi (some people scan up to 4000 dpi).

So I think you will be fine with the lower model that just does 1200 dpi for scanning prints. So really you just need to decide if the more expensive model has any other features that may make you want to choose it instead. That’s a question you will have to decide based on your printing etc needs. Hope this helps you. 🙂

Cheers!

Jane, you’re so welcome! Thank you for letting me know I’ve made a difference for you. 🙂

Hi Sharon. Sounds like you have some cool photos on your hands! 🙂

If these are the only copies, I would scan and them save the master images as something other than a JPG (compressed) file. I would save it as a TIFF (uncompressed) or PNG file (uncompressed). That way, you are sure to have digital copy at the highest quality. Then, if you want to give them away to others (email etc), then you can send them out of a program like Picasa or iPhoto etc that will turn those TIFF/PNG files to a smaller JPG file that will be easier to send. This process is usually called “Export” in a photo manager — sometimes “send.”

You didn’t say what size your photos are you want to scan, and that’s the best indicator of what DPI you want to scan with. For example, I might scan a wallet sized print at 1000dpi but an 8×10″ print between 300-600dpi. At the bottom of this post here where you left your comment, I wrote up a chart that shows you a good idea of what dpi to use with different sized prints. Be sure to check it out. You can go with these or even a tiny bit higher if you want. Just know the higher the scan doesn’t necessarily mean you are going to capture more detail from the print. The print only has so much detail from the developing. And often you will find B&W prints have more detail to record to you can safely scan a little bit higher of a DPI.

But to answer your question, 600 dpi is usually enough for prints 4×6″ or so. Most scanning companies scan at 600dpi if you want the “pro” or “advanced” services, and 300 dpi for basic. If you want, go up to like 800 dpi. I think 1200 dpi is too much unless you are scanning a really small print — like wallet sized.

Hope this helps Sharon! 🙂

Thank you — I really appreciate that! :thumbsup:

Thanks Tom! I really appreciate all the compliments! :thumbs:

And wow… you said you have 10’s of thousands of digital images. Is that including those taken with digital cameras, or have you scanned that many?

And yeah, it does take a LOT of time to come up with a workflow where you feel confident you are moving forward correctly. It feels like such a leap of faith at that moment when you finally just tell yourself you know enough to start up the “scanning machine.” I just knew I had to start with what I had learned at the time or I NEVER would have done anything!

Thanks for joining my mailing list Tom. Keep in touch and I hope I can help you out with your collection in the future. 🙂

Sorry got confused with the comments. This message is for Curtis ^^
Please ignore me addressing it to Nancy. But hi to you Nancy anyway and to all who made the previous comments!

*I’m pinching myself with this mistake I have done* Hahaha! 😀

Nancy — that’s great to hear you’re non editing your master files, but duplicating them first and working from them. If you’re not using a non-destructive image manager (Picasa or iPhoto are good ones to start with), that’s definitely the best way to work.

And yes, you are in fact reading that right.If you scan and then immediately save that scan as a .JPG file, you are indeed losing some detail and quality. How much you lose is dependent on what program you are using and how much compression is applied with the setting you choose.

The thing is, the .JPG file format was created as a means to take beefy image file and make it smaller. The smaller the image, the more of them you could save on smaller hard drives and the easier it was to transmit them, whether it be websites or via email. It’s meant for convenience over quality.

That being said, if you save a .JPG with the “highest quality” setting, it’s amazing how good they can look. You may have to zoom in really close before you could even notice a difference from an uncompressed file. But, as we’ve been talking about it, it’s compounding “compression” that you really have to worry about. And if the thought of any compression bothers you at all (easily visible or not), I would try and avoid it as much as you can by using a file format like the uncompressed .TIFF. (There is such a thing as a compressed .TIFF is why I differentiate it)

You’re so welcome!

Glad to hear you’re making your collection a priority!
Love it!

Not worries at all Art! And you’re so welcome. 🙂

The best websites/blogs I frequent have a wonderful family — a community — that all work together to solve each other’s problems. I am SO happy to see that starting to happen here. 🙂

“It’s much better to increase an image’s size in the scanner than to scan at its actual size and try to enlarge it in editing software.”

Totally agree with you there! It’s a good point to keep making. We can all never hear that too much.

Scan high now so you don’t regret it later.

Hey Nancy — you’re welcome for the chart. Hopefully it made you feel a little better that you were on track with the consensus. 🙂

If you’re the type of person that is worrying about scanning at the “right” DPI, then this means you care about the outcome. And when that’s the case, I would suggest you lean towards the liberal side and scan “high”. Disk space is cheap now.

300 DPI for standard sized prints is on the conservative side. Especially for some of those prints that really DO have a lot of detail in them — like some black and white ones from the 60’s and 70’s.

I rarely ever scan below 600 DPI, but I rarely ever scan higher than 1000 (for prints). I use 1000 or sometimes a little higher for tiny wallet size photos.

As far as scanning too high though, there is a limit to where the benefits no longer outweigh the burden. I think many professionals would probably agree with what I wrote above in my article:

“In most cases, you won’t do any harm scanning at unnecessarily high resolutions. Just don’t fool yourself into thinking the higher up you go, the more detail you will extract – because it probably isn’t there to begin with. If you had this much detail, it would be in your original film negative or slide – not in the print.”

Thanks Paul! You’re so welcome. So glad we could be of help. 🙂

Hey Paul. Thanks for the compliments. 🙂

Be glad that your “mistake” was possibly scanning too high instead of scanning too low! Most make that one instead. So, consider yourself lucky.

I wouldn’t worry about your 1200dpi scans that much. Yes, some of them could be really large as far as disk space — especially if you scanned prints 5″ x 7″ or bigger. But, as long as your scanner scanned at 1200 dpi optically and not “digitally”, then I think you are fine. (This article you just commented on explains the difference)

Before I settled on my DPI’s of choice, professionals that I read basically stressed scanning at lower DPI’s because there is no reason to scan high. Most of their time was spent explaining that most printed photographs just don’t hold enough “detail” information to warrant scanning with high DPI’s — so you’re just wasting your time and hard drive space going above a reasonable number… usually 600 dpi is given — sometimes lower. With film — slides — pros often site that scanning too high of a dpi will bring out too much film grain in your scans. So, if you have scanned film, check some of your scans to see if you see too much of a grain pattern as you zoom in with your image manager/editor of choice.

Personally, I scan small wallet-sized prints at 1000 dpi so that I have enough resolution to work with later for whatever reason. And that is close to your 1200 dpi. Maybe that will make you feel better. 😉

Thanks for the comment and stopping by!
Curtis

Thanks Mark! Glad it helped you!

Hey Mel! You’re welcome for the posts! So glad you found them helpful.

Yeah, I think just the fact you are now considering scanning all of your prints at 600 tells me you will be happier that you did. It really doesn’t take the scanner that much longer to scan at the higher resolution, and later down the road you won’t ever have the possibility of kicking yourself saying, “Man! Why didn’t I just go ahead and scan at 600. Silly of me.”

I am scanning all of my prints at 48-bit and between 600 dpi – 720 dpi. I always do 720 for the smaller 3″ x 3″ type square photos. 600 is my minimum for all normal sizes that we are accustomed to. Some of the really tiny wallet size prints I go even higher. And like I was pointing out in the article on DPI that you read, it’s not always about trying to obtaining more detail stored in the print. It’s about getting the resolution high enough that it makes it easer to do tight crops and enlargements should I ever want to.

It also keeps a nice uniformity of resolution across all of your prints. For example, with devices like Apple TV’s where you can display your photos on your large screen television in the living room, it’s nice to have that large amount of resolution to fill up the screen.

As far as buying another drive — you may or may not have to. (I would certainly make sure you make at least 1 backup at all times, maybe even more depending on how paranoid you are!) 😉 My prints come out to be about 40-50 megabytes (MB’s) a piece on average, and my slides that I am scanning at 3200 DPI and 48 bit come out to be about 80 MB’s a piece. So it’s very possible if you have a collection of 3000 photos, your collection (at these sizes) could reach the 300 gig range. I know with 9000+ photos on my end (prints+slides combined), I will need at least 1 terabyte (1000 gigs) of space. But, drives this big can easily be had for $100 or less now, so I consider it a wise investment to obtain such “roomy” resolutions!

Curtis

Thanks Peter! I really appreciate the warm compliments.

It really has been a bit of a challenge to put myself back in my earlier “shoes” when I was just starting out scanning my own collection. I have been trying to remember all of these questions I had and eventually found answers to either from the help of others or by trial and error myself. I know this is the best way I can help people right now until this site starts getting a lot of interaction.

So I really appreciate your feedback that I have in fact been hitting some of the right issues. It’s great motivation for me to keep it up! 😉

Keep us informed how your scanning is going!