Dave,
I personally scan at a much higher resolution (300/600/1200 dpi) than I
ultimately use on the web. Scan, perform whatever corrections/retouches/etc.
you desire, then reduce for the web. Since I happen to use Photoshop, I
first reduce to the resolution I want (usually no more than 96dpi), holding
size constant. Then I reduce the size to whatever I feel is appropriate (but
often 640x480 to accommodate those with small monitors).
A rule of thumb: A monitor set at/near 640x480 is typically about 72dpi, one
handling 800x600 or higher is typically at about 96dpi.
Final step is trying to decide how much compression, if any, is bearable
when saving as JPG. That's often a function of both one's software and the
photograph itself. Photoshop seems to do a good job of applying compression
in JPG format while remaining free from artifacts, some others do not. Also,
photos with lots of "sharp breaks" between colors/tonal values often seem to
exhibit compression artifacts under less compression than those with more
smooth gradations.
All of this is much simplified, but boils down to this: through the entire
process you are trying to balance "good aesthetics" with speed of download.
The higher the resolution/larger the final image size you choose, the larger
the image file will be and the slower the download (and therefore the less
likely, for most general web purposes, that someone will wait for the
picture to be displayed).
HTH, and I'm willing to bet others will have much to say regarding my
particular choice of procedure. :-)
---
Scott Gomez
-----Original Message-----
From: DAVDOU9211@xxxxxxx [mailto:DAVDOU9211@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 21:25
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re:Scanning for TOPE Display
What scan rate are most using for TOPE? If I scan a photo at much over
100dpi it is too large to see on screen. I am still pretty ignorant as to
how to overcome this issue, but when I look at some of the new photos in
TOPE
5 I am jealous. I am especially struck by how sharp #22 is. My submission
is as sharp in the original photo, but loses something in the scanning. Any
input would be appreciated. Thanks.
Dave Dougherty
|