QTR-Quadtone RIP

I'm not sure what Silverfast is showing or suggesting, but unless you have a very specific use or print size in mind, it is generally best to pick a scanning resolution as high as your scanner can actually use and benefit from. (Some software calls this an "archive" or "archival" scan, meaning that you are preserving as much information or detail as you can.) On Nikon and Minolta scanners, that was usually the top optical or hardware resolution for the machine.  With many other machines, especially flatbeds, you gain nothing by going to the top resolution (6400 dpi may show no more detail than, say, 3200 or even 2400).

300dpi is often suggested as good for printing. If that's what you want, your scan has to be fine enough (high enough dpi resolution) that when you 'spread out' the pixels from that tiny 24x36mm negative you end up with at least 300dpi at your intended print size.

Myron

On Feb 2, 2018, at 1:02 PM, 'Arthur Romano' aromanocpa@...<mailto:aromanocpa@...> [QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com<mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
I am scanning 35mm Black and White negatives using SIlverfast 8.8 with a plustek scanner. I have a theoretical question.
 The first thing I do in my work flow is set the resolution that the optimum seems to be 3200 ppi at the original negative size.  But SIlverfast seems to suggest using  300ppi for printing. I am in conflict with this idea for the following reason; When I open up in photoshop cc  I  do my adjustments and the ppi is still at 3200 but when I go To print and raise the paper size to say 11 x 14  or 8 x10 the ppi goes down with the increase therefore reducing my resolution. That is fine as long as I start high with the 3200. But if I do  what Silverfast suggests I will be down to  like  72ppi by the time I get to an 8 x 10. I am printing fine art so that seems counter  productive.
 Am I thinking clear on this one?

Art Romano