Scanning 35 mm prints

[fintastique]

Yes I have switched to digital but I have about 10 years of travel prints mostly of the USA unfortunately with fairly cheap compact cameras.

I have managed to get a few online (mostly at 123rf) but I was trying to get a few more on StockXpert.

Has anyone bothered (had any success) scanning old prints of unusual locations if so what rez 2mp, 3mp 4mp?

I have a feeling it depends on the print, if its� nice and bright will give you a 4 mp but if there is a lot of fine detail or if its fairly dark the grain or lack of detail in the print will be apparent.

I know iStock tell you not to even bother scanning a 6 x 4 inch (10 x 15 cm) print

One of the lucky ones
http://www.dreamstime.com/59thstreetbridge-image591167

Still waiting with baited breath for Shutterstock to review my second review batch of photos and Alamy to get back to me regarding my CD.

Steve
www.fintastique.com/guide.htm needs updating, its on the list

[ichiro17]

I can't tell you either way.  I know that my versions of scanned prints were only accepted at Bigstock and Fotolia (1 or 2 at Fotolia and I gave up.  I'm not sure, maybe its my scanner (it can't scan negatives - its a bit old) or otherwise, but now that I have the Rebel XT, I'm just taking pics with that and experimenting that way - digital quality is obviously much better.  I have hundreds of prints but I also have the negatives, so hopefully I can make enough through micros to buy a hi-def neg scanner - I think thats the better way to go from what I've read

[madelaide]

I have tons of slides and I've been scanning them with a now old HP Photosmart film scanner.  I think it delivers very sharp scans, though noisy.  I can get 2100dpi optical resolution scans, which means about 6MPix images from the 35mm slides.  It scans small prints too, but I never tried it with photos.  Recently I bought a second-hand Minolta Dimage Dual Scan IV, which at 3200dpi delivers 12Mpix images.  I'm still getting used to it though and I think this higher res in return shows much more flaws, even lens quality - or perhaps I haven't yet found the best settings.

However I don't sell these high-res images at micropayment sites.  I thought of scanning some at low res, but never did.  I'm full of images taken with my digital P&S that I have to adjust and submit, and I don't have time for all that.

Regards,
Adelaide

[fintastique]

I thought I would add a few words about scanning 6 x 4 prints taken with a compact camera.

From the last batch of about a dozen

SS + DT turned them all down flat

StockXpert liked them but smaller rejected 6mp and then 4 mp a that point I got bored of resizing

123 and FT accepted about half

still waiting for CanStockPhoto and BS

Though previously DT did accept some, so hopefully 123 new credit sales will justify the time taken to correct for film grain and scanner dust - but I doubt it.

[madelaide]

I read elsewhere that prints should not be scanned above 300dpi, because you reach the print's resolution.  This may be the source of some problems you face.

Regards,
Adelaide

[fintastique]

Actually 300 dpi sounds familiar thought that wopuld only give you a 2 mp picture so only good for

StockXpert, FT, BS so payments 33c - $1

So you can understand me overreaching for 4 mp for submission to few more sites and a few extra cents.

Well I have plenty of images to prepare for Alamy so i shall leave the other prints for the moment.

Thanks for the reminder and the iStock extended licence tip.

Steve

[madelaide]

Here are a couple of interesting discussions about scanning prints:

http://www.scantips.com/resolut.html

http://h50036.www5.hp.com/createuse/learning/photores.asp
(which is the same as http://www.scantips.com/basics08.html - who copied who?)

Regards,
Adelaide