On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 01:05:24 -0400, you wrote: >That is a case where you certainly can try it. I would suggest trying both >methods, and see which works better for you. Some scanners do a fantastic >job at giving you great scans at reduced DPI, and others are quite bad. >Only through a test of your own, can you really know. > >> Seems like people are saying scan >> at the highest res possible, save the raw file and work from that. > >For printing to inkjet, that is the correct workflow. For web output, only >you can really test that out...and decide. > >> But that would involve a lot of this information loss when resizing, >> or is the information lost not essential? > >No matter what, either the scanner, or PS is going to "lose" data...it has >to, since the scanner can (except a drum) ONLY scan at the native resolution >of the scanner, and then the scanner will decimate the data down to what you >requested...so there's loss either way, it's just which loss ends up looking >better.
OK, that sounds reasonable! For the most part I actually really like the web results I'm getting so far, as long as the detail is not too much in shadow. I have one slide though, that I'm having a tough time with. It's of a dramatic (very wide tonal range) sunset scene over a city, from high up. There's lots of fine detail of the city in the slide that I can see with a loupe on the light table, but it comes out fuzzy in the scan. Much fuzzier than say the pollen grains on a macro shot of a flower stamen, which actually represent a smaller target. Any idea what's going on here? Is it just the scanner struggling with shadowed areas? Ken
