http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/beneath_the_metadata_a_reply.html
-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Robert Leming
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 1:02 PM
To: 'Museum Computer Network Listserv'
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Fwd:
Hi -
A lot of good info has gone out today regarding this.
A good consideration is to deliver images ready for press.
This will push you toward files that are 8000 pixels for a full page
illustration. Maybe 6000 for a half page image. Mid range cameras
and scanners may have trouble creating
Just to be clear, interpolating is not the same as scaling. Wanting a 5x7
photo or document to be 200% its size when scanning is scaling. Having a
completed 5x7 scan at 300ppi and then making the file larger is interpolating.
Mike Rippy
IMA Photographer
mrippy at ima.museum
(317)920-2662 ext.1
Hi Richard,
Sorry for the very slow response to your on-list proposal for a Research
SIG. As you'll know from our conference chat, I am definitely up for
this and thanks for putting it forward.
As you suggest, it's probably a good idea to take a fairly loose
approach to what constitutes research
I am away until November 29 and I will reply when I return. If necessary, for
outgoing loans you can contact Rachel Waldron at rwal at loc.gov or Patrick
Shepler at pshe at loc.gov, for traveling exhibits Seth De Matties at sede at
loc.gov, or if this is an emergency, call our main office at 2
Julie,
Whether you "scale up" or increase resolution (ppi or "dpi") you will be
increasing the amount of pixels being created. The one thing you want to focus
on when scanning is the pixel dimensions. Everything else will be determined
from those dimensions. ppi or dpi is applied to the ori
Hello MCN'ers,
Thanks for all of the helpful responses about scanning negatives. My main
concern was that my technician's recommendation to "scale up" might not be
the best way to go for a master image, and I thank Richard Urban especially
for his clear explanation about that.
I thought you al
At 08:05 AM 11/22/2006, you wrote:
>Hi Richard,
>
>Sorry for the very slow response to your on-list proposal for a Research
>SIG. As you'll know from our conference chat, I am definitely up for
>this and thanks for putting it forward.
I am afraid you have mistaken me for someone else. I was at no
