CNET también está disponible en español.

Ir a español

Don't show this again

Photography

Indecent Exposure 67: Interrupting experiences (podcast)

Honing your sharpening skills, how you left your ruts in the mud, and your fall foliage photos for all.

Honing your sharpening skills, how you left your ruts in the mud, and your fall foliage photos for all.

Podcast


Subscribe now: iTunes (audio) | RSS (audio)

EPISODE 67

Today's links:
News


Contests

To convert text to clickable links, at least in Firefox, install Linkification. We apologize for the lack of HTML link support in our comments; we had excessive spamming with link capability.

Last topic: Change of seasons
Winner: Fireleaf

Honorable mentions: Imagenes

Next topic: Black. Deadline: Thursday, November 12, 12 p.m. EDT
Note: To minimize confusion, we're now providing entry deadlines. They'll usually be Thursdays at noon Eastern time. You can still post links after that, which may still get included, but to ensure they get entered, that's the time you should target. To enter, please use the blog comments to provide a link to your entry, plus any background information you'd like to share with us and other listeners.

Today's questions

Film scanning, redux

You touched a bit on film scanning in the last podcast, and that got me thinking of my own "analog" photo collection. I have a bunch of (maybe a few dozen) film rolls from my old APS/Advantix point & shoot, and as this week I'm in the process of moving, I am acutely aware of the heft and bulk of having hundreds of printed photos. What I'd like is to digitize them.
I already have a bunch of these on PhotoCD, having ordered the original prints with this then-novel feature, but I'm realizing that these photo CD image files are only about 1 megapixel in resolution. My question is, would I be better off to re-scan the old prints with my own Canon LiDE 90 scanner, or to send the original negative cartridges away to a professional lab? Scanning prints myself would be cheap, but time-consuming, whereas sending negatives away would be expensive, but take virtually no time, and perhaps have a higher quality scan. What I don't know is, will I be assured to get a better image from a freshly-scanned negative, or would scanning old prints myself probably look about as good? I would just buy an APS film scanner, but... well, they're pretty much impossible to find, since no one uses APS film anymore. Given the scarcity of labs that can even process APS film anymore, I'm thinking I should probably archive these photos sooner rather than later; I just can't decide how to do so. My next problem would be finding a website or local lab that can scan these negatives, and I don't know where to start looking for a good-quality lab for that.
jcdberkely


Look sharp

Long time listener but I always seem to be behind when listening to the podcast so I haven't ever asked a question. I seem to have problems sharpening for print. I always sharpen when I resize for web publishing and I have that nailed down. However, sharpening for print seems to be so much trickier. I've yet to find a great way to go about it. Do you sharpen based on what sized print you'll be making or more generic if you decide you want different sized prints later on? Any tips for using Unsharp Mask? Thanks! Sorry if this has been asked before and I've just missed it.
kentiga

Photo sharpening