1st scan
 

I'm just starting scanning and editing (and posting) Here's a sample, Tabatha Cash from Color Climax 171. I've had a 20+ year thing for her :) the color balance isn't ideal between the two pages. The scan is resized and compressed significantly.

I'm not sure what size image I should aim for? Happy to get feedback.

http://thumbnails105.imagebam.com/46...8465263156.jpg
http://thumbnails113.imagebam.com/46...8465250518.jpg

Seems like you've done a good job with it, grabo. Not grainy, we can't see the original dots the image would've been printed with in the mag, and the colour seems fairly neutral.

The 'thumbnail' size you've posted is rather large. I'm pretty sure you'll be asked to re-up the pic with a thumbnail size no bigger than 180x180 (or is it 80x80?) pixels. You should see the option of thumbnail size just above the 'upload now' button if you use imagebam.

Anyway, the image size I usually go for on pics is around 1000 pixels high or thereabouts. This allows the pic to be seen 'full height' without the top and bottom being cut off when I click on the 'Actual size' icon.

I don't know if you do this already, but I scan and save the image as a bitmap, close the scan and when I come to work on the pic I open with the programme I'm using (ability photopaint 2001 or micrografx picture publisher 8) depending on what I want to do first, I then save the file as a bitmap with an extra letter or number so that I don't overwrite the original bitmap. I compare the original with the new version in the 'Slideshow' mode in windows picture viewer, I pause the slideshow and click between the two pics too see if the new version is better. If I decide to do other changes, I do them and save as a third bitmap and re-do the comparison, this time with version 1 and 2. This can go on for quite a while, with someitmes several days between the versions. This has helped a lot with 'problem pics'.

Hi, grabo and welcome.

Yes; the maximum allowable thumbnail size here is 180 x 180 so you should rehost the image and edit your post. This scan is about 348k which is small by today's standards. I'd rather see close to 1mb per page for these magazines. The difference would be mostly visible in the text but less compression would yield a better image overall. Everyone has their own method but I scan at 300dpi then resize if necessary. I have noticed different magazines (with poor print quality) sometimes can't handle that much resolution but scanning at higher resolution won't help significantly. Overall, though it looks very good.

Many thanks for the feedback.

I'm scanning at 300dpi from a high quality magazine copy. I have an image at 1.45MB which is a little better when you zoom in but not really noticeable at basic HD resolution.

The biggest question I have is what resolution to save the final version as? The original merged image is about 4K wide and is only slightly better than the 348k image above.

Only another 120 pages to go and I'll have this issue ready :)

I wouldn't want you to waste your time; CC 171 was already posted here by hartwig. His links are no longer good but I have his archive which I could repost. You're free to scan and post your own, of course but if you have other mags which aren't already here I'd rather see you work on those.

I fully agree with Pepper II here. Furthermore I would like to add that your scan looks really good. Posts of this quality are definitely welcome at VEF.
I suggest you find a modus operandi that works best for you. Choose a resolution that gives the best quality:time ratio. As others have already said, in some cases you may want to change the resolution in order to avoid moiré. The compression you use is similar to the one I use, so I think it's fine. For some hints you can check the links in my sig. Good luck!

to prevent scanning a magazine that is already on the forum:
 

Follow-up on these remarks:

try using the search function in the blue bar on top of each page: (click on image to enlarge);

http://ist3-1.filesor.com/pimpandhos...20option_0.jpg

for a specific search in a magazine thread use this search option:

http://ist3-1.filesor.com/pimpandhos...0bar%201_0.jpg

in detail:

http://ist3-1.filesor.com/pimpandhos...0bar%202_0.jpg

also, important: please read this thread first:

http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/t30...-function.html

regards, hfh.

Thanks for the suggestions. I did see that cc171 had already been scanned (although the links are on rapidshare) I have found online copies of 171 - not sure if they are copies of hartwig's previous work - which are missing some pages and the original source mag has some graining to it so I thought I'd have a go from a better copy. If you are able to repost that would be useful though.

My 'collection' comprises of 2 magazines in total, both acquired recently so I don't think I'll be able to add to the archive :)

Very nice scan. The question of "how big should the scan be" is a vexing one, because it depends on the quality of the original. Scanning a low quality original at very high resolution doesn't get you any more detail, because it isn't there in the original; in fact, scanning at a too high resolution can create a file that looks worse.

What you've produced looks excellent. You can try scanning at a higher resolution to see the difference, but I suspect you're already at or near the sweet spot in quality with the scan you posted. No moire, no grain, looks very good.