Welcome Sign out
Shopping Cart My Account Order History Sign in Not yet a member? Help

BookSmart

.Tiffs converted to .Jpegs

I’m creating a book with older pictures – all 35mm pics that I scanned in as .tiffs.  I now see that they have to be jpegs so I’ve converted them all to .jpeg.  Now they are all too small – even for the 7" book.  Can I ignore the warnings or am I screwed?

Replytopic_b_normal
Posted by
michlrp
May 6, 2008 10:14pm PDT
Permalink
michlrp
 

Hello michlrp;

My advice to you is NOT to ignore the warning - but certainly to take note of it…

What matters to BookSmart is pixel count; and Blurb work on the optimum of 300dpi for assessing image sizing… (I "think" that the warning sign starts to pop-up when you get to about 150dpi !!!)

If we start with an assumtion that your 35mm image scans are from 6" x 4" prints, and that you scanned at a regular 300dpi, then…

Although you will have lost some image quality on the conversion / compression from TIFF to JPEG, you will not (should not!) have lost any sizing…

So, if my assumptions are correct, your images will have a pixel count of c. 1800×1200, which, when printed at 300dpi will (re)produce an image of 6" x 4".

You need to note that your JPEG image will now be at least a fourth generation copy, so the quality will be much reduced from your original image…

However, you should still be able to reproduce the image at 250dpi which will give you c. 7" x 5"... which SHOULD be OK for your 7×7 book project…

So, that leads me to believe that one of my original assumptions must be wrong, and I suspect that it’s the scanning resolution…

If that’s the case, then I suggest you re-scan your images at a much higher resolution – say 600dpi, which will generate a c. 3600×2400 pixel image. That will give you plenty of lee-way to work with in a 7×7 book, and will help with the quality loss…

Holler out if there’s more input you want – but I hope this points you in the right direction…

Good luck;

Lee

Posted by
lkb-28
May 7, 2008 1:17am PDT
Permalink
lkb-28
 

Michlrp,

I agree with Lee – I have scanned in some pretty old 3×5 and 4×6 photos at 600 dpi (even 1200 dpi if I know I am only going to be using a small area of the photo). The scans come in as tiffs and I then save them as jpegs. The resulting jpegs have been reproduced exceedingly well even in a 8×10 book. The 1200 dpi might be overkill by some people’s standards but I have had nothing but quality output when the books have been printed. Good luck!

Teri

Posted by
hooloovoos
May 7, 2008 6:37am PDT
Permalink
hooloovoos
 

Thanks guys.  I thought about rescanning on a different machine – at least those that I wanted to increase to an 8×10 image.

I also sent the pics to both Walmart and Walgreens to blow up to an 8×10.  Do you think that if the quality is good on those it will be ok??? 

 

Posted by
michlrp
May 7, 2008 11:37am PDT
Permalink
michlrp
 

michlrp,

 I would not judge the images by what you get back from the photo shop. Both retailers may have a system that rescale your files before printing. Blurb uses your files as is. You could resize your files in Photoshop but that would not be as good as rescanning the originals. I just had a photo book of a trip to Portugal taken in 1980 (No public yet) published with 405 scanned 35mm Kodachromes. The JPEG files were in the range of 2-4 MP (4053×2635 pixels) after converting from tiff. The book came out very well but required a fair amout of work in Photoshop since the dynamic range of the chromes far exceed that of the Indigo printer.

Posted by
lcarreira
May 7, 2008 5:19pm PDT
Permalink
lcarreira
 

michlrp,

Sorry, my previous posting was in error. I missunderstood what you did with your prints. Having them (the prints) enlarged by Walmart et al will give you the enlargement factor you need but the quality might suffer as you are going to be scanning a third generation image (negative, print, scanned print, print, scanned print, file to Blurb,  Indigo print). Having the original 35mm negs enlarged to 8×10 would be best but so would scanning the negs instead of the prints (even better).

Posted by
lcarreira
May 7, 2008 5:35pm PDT
Permalink
lcarreira
 

Thanks again everyone.  I ended up rescanning at 600 dpi and the size is much better.

Posted by
michlrp
May 8, 2008 8:56pm PDT
Permalink
michlrp