Software or scanner to enlage photos: I recently read an article that said not to use software but scanners to enlarge photos. Wondering if anyone has any experience with both of these...

The Capt.

I recently read an article that said not to use software but scanners to enlarge photos. Wondering if anyone has any experience with both of these methods and opinions on which is better or if it makes any difference.
Thanks in advance.

don1047 Loc: Colorado

Topaz Gigapixel works very well for me.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I'd think it would be very dependent upon the specifics of the image, the scanner, the software and the 'amount' of enlargement desired. If you can't print the smaller image and have access to the scanner to re-capture, it sounds like click-bait for selling scanners. If the image started as digital, it would be nonsensical to print and scan to enlarge. Have you missed any relevant detail / context of the topic you read?

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

The Capt. wrote:

I recently read an article that said not to use software but scanners to enlarge photos. Wondering if anyone has any experience with both of these methods and opinions on which is better or if it makes any difference.
Thanks in advance.

I don't understand.

If your photo is a physical print, how would you use software to enlarge it?

If your photo is digital, how would you use a scanner to enlarge it?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

DirtFarmer wrote:

I don't understand.

If your photo is a physical print, how would you use software to enlarge it?

If your photo is digital, how would you use a scanner to enlarge it?

Yes, these are the fundamental questions that need to be asked to clarify the OP's musing.

Are we starting with a silver halide or chromogenic photo print? An inkjet print? A halftone from a newspaper? A color separation gravure from a magazine?

If we are starting from a digital image file, software is the obvious choice. Results are mostly dependent upon the quality of the original. What is the bit depth? What are the PIXEL dimensions? Is it available as the original raw file, or just a JPEG? What generation of JPEG? Has it been cropped?

I love these random general questions, because they illustrate the need for specificity. As in all of life, the answer depends upon the specific situation.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

The only way I can see a scanner makes sense is if the original is on film, and you scan it at maximum resolution.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

JohnSwanda wrote:

The only way I can see a scanner makes sense is if the original is on film, and you scan it at maximum resolution.

I agree with that. Scanning slides and negatives, or copying them with a digital camera and macro lens setup, yields better results than using a flatbed to scan a print.

These were 35mm film originals, all copied with a 16MP digital camera and macro lens, and developed in Lightroom Classic with Negative Lab Pro.

View the downloaded versions of these images to see the quality.

I've attached a PDF of a white paper explaining how I copied my film.

(Download)

(Download)

Attached file:
(Download)

User ID

DirtFarmer wrote:

I don't understand.

If your photo is a physical print, how would you use software to enlarge it?

If your photo is digital, how would you use a scanner to enlarge it?

Exactly. 100% pure UHH :-(

User ID

The Capt. wrote:

I recently read an article that said not to use software but scanners to enlarge photos. Wondering if anyone has any experience with both of these methods and opinions on which is better or if it makes any difference.
Thanks in advance.

Total nonsense.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

User ID wrote:

Exactly. 100% pure UHH :-(

Yeah, it's typical lay person-level questioning. And that's normal. If you don't know what you don't know, how do you know what questions to ask, or how to ask them?

I've said for years that people very often ask the wrong questions the wrong way because they don't understand the situation they are asking about. They think a certain thing is important when it's not, and ignore the more important issue on the table. But if you redirect them and say, "Pay attention to this thing over here... It's what you really should be asking about!" They get all bent out of shape and insulted and tell you you're evil for not answering the original question.

It's dangerous dragging folks out of their rabbit holes! But someone has to be willing to do it. Sometimes, learning requires being insulted first.

coolhanduke Loc: Redondo Beach, CA

Not sure why one would take this approach.
I have never shot an image, printed it out, scanned it to make an enlargement.
Unless I’m missing something, after scanning the photo, you will use software to crop it to the size you want.
Short of not having the original file, I see no purpose in the scanning process.
And you would need a good resolution scanner.

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

If it's a digital image, you can enlarge or shrink using post processing software. If it's a hard copy you have to digitize it using your camera, scanner, or in the case of slides a piece of equipment made for that. Personally, I find that copying printed material (photos, words, etc.) using a scanner is quicker and easier. I can correct any flaws by post processing the image. I guess it's lazy but it works for me. I also have a slide scanner instrument.

RichinSeattle

The Capt. wrote:

I recently read an article that said not to use software but scanners to enlarge photos. Wondering if anyone has any experience with both of these methods and opinions on which is better or if it makes any difference.
Thanks in advance.

I've scanned old prints, negs and slides at very high resolution levels (with my Epson V600) and have had success having them printed in larger sizes. Of course, the original pic must be of high quality to begin with, and shot on high res, quality 35 MM film (Kodachrome or Ektrachrome my faves).

If you're talking about scanning prints made from digital files, I can't imagine how that would improve the pic in any way.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

The Capt. wrote:

I recently read an article that said not to use software but scanners to enlarge photos. Wondering if anyone has any experience with both of these methods and opinions on which is better or if it makes any difference.
Thanks in advance.

I don't know of a scanner with AI, and if they were one or would cost a fortune, So I don't understand why someone would say that.. Besides that, do your have to print an image, then scan it...... Total garbage as I see it, with out reading the article. Maybe a link to the article, since you did not explain the process.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

don1047 wrote:

Topaz Gigapixel works very well for me.