I would have thought that a scan of a quality 10 x 8 print would give better results than the scan of a similar quality 5x7. After all the bigger print will be able to show more detail than a smaller one. To do with the resolution of paper prints. The resolution of paper is the same for all sizes so a big print will have better detail. The scanner may be set on the resolution that uses all the paper resolution but no more. That way the maximum information will be transferred. Chris mailto:nimbo@ukonline.co.uk http://www.chrissdomain.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu [mailto:owner-photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu]On Behalf Of Bright, Christy [IBD] Sent: 11 November 2002 15:53 To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students Subject: scanner question Many thanks to all of you who responded to my questions about the G2 a few weeks back, particularly Chistiane, whose incredibly detailed and informative email I took with me to B&H. It is now mine! Lots of bells and whistles on it for someone who's shot the vast majority of her work on a completely manual Pentax, but I'm excited to start working with it. The next item on my list is a scanner. I'm looking for something professional quality (this is all part of my quest to finally build a professional website), but nothing outrageously technologically advanced. I just want good, clean scans that will give me as much detail as possible without spending a fortune. Does such a thing exist for under $300? And here's a stupid question - does the size of the print I'm scanning make any difference in the quality of the scan? Assuming the scanner can take, say, an 8x10, is there any advantage to scanning that size as opposed to a 5x7? Is it just a matter of the quality of the print itself regardless of size? Thanks for your input. Any thoughts you all have will be greatly appreciated. Christy
