Thanks for sharing your findings.  I have been bitten by the negative bug of late, and did lots of scanning of old pictures and negatives (well new negatives, as I have also been bitten by the film bug.  Lots of bugs going around.

I scan all of my negative (colour and b&w) at 3200 dpi, 24 bit.  Since I only print a few and display most on facebook, flickr or here, only 72 dpi is really needed, it is overkill.  The file size is about 50 mb per file. 

So while it is overkill, it is easier (at least for me) to edit and clean up.  So when downsamples to 72 dpi for web, or 600 dpi for print, the image looks better (once again at least to me)

The only downside  is that scanning takes about 30 minutes for a rack of negatives (12 images).  I use an Epson V500 scanner.  So i set up the rack, start scanning, then play games, or watch Fringe or something haha.

I scan everything to TIFF for what its worth.

It is lots of fun to be sure.

Ok I have rambled enough.  Once again, thanks for sharing your findings.

For archiving, I will stick with scanning at 2400 DPI for 35mm Color Negatives. This resolution gives more than enough pixels to produce an 8x10 print. Not that I ever would, but if I wanted to I'd have enough data to do so. For scanning prints (4x6 or 5x7), I found that 1200 DPI is overkill and produces an enormous file. Scanning at 600 DPI for Prints is plenty and again gives more than enough pixels for an 8x10. Both of these resulted in a file about 23MB in size. Not too bad considering hard drive size these days.

For Printing, resample images to 300 DPI. What I learned is that most labs print photos at 300 DPI. There are some specialty labs and higher-end photo printers that print at higher resolutions. But 300 DPI is a good benchmark. In fact, when given an image above 300 DPI, the lab printer will resample the image down to 300 before printing anyway. In the end, when I held an original 4x6 print side-by-side with the 600 DPI scan (resampled to 300 DPI for printing), they looked identical. And at some point, you have to call it good enough and move on. Otherwise I'd never finish the project.

Hope this helps someone. I'm off to start scanning!  

James

Since I will only have a few hours at each family member's house to scan the photos of interest, my approach will be to scan with printing in mind. The scans can always be batch-resized for screen display later. To prepare, I've been doing some experimenting to strike a good balance between scan time, filesize, and quality. Glad I did! I found out quickly that scan time and filesize can get gigantic depending on the settings selected. One combination resulted in a file that was over 1 GB for a single 4x6 print and it took almost an hour to scan!

After much experimenting, here are the candidate scanner settings I'm considering.

Prints
Original Size: 4-inch x 6-inch
Resolution: 1200-ppi
Bit Depth: 24-bit color (this value is set by the scanner and cannot be changed)
File Type: TIFF Uncompressed
Results:
   Filesize ~100-MB
   Scan Time ~1-Min

For comparison, doubling the resolution to 2400ppi quadruples the filesize (100-MB >> 390-MB) but only marginally increases the scan time. I need to find out if 1200-ppi is enough to make prints. I think it is.

35mm Color Negatives
Original Size: 36-mm x 24-mm
Resolution: 2400-ppi
Bit Depth: 24-bit color
File Type: TIFF Uncompressed
Results:
   Filesize  ~25-MB
   Scan Time  ~5-Min

I chose 2400-ppi for color negatives since they will have to be enlarged at least 4 times to produce 4x6 prints. But they take a long time to scan. Hopefully, I won't encounter many negatives during this project.

I'm going to send a few of these test scans to the lab for printing. I suppose that will be the ultimate way to find out if the settings will work. But I'm curious to find out what any of you have done for a similar project. Please share any tips, tricks, pitfalls, etc.

Thanks,

James

What I like about Costo is that they're local (for me), fast (prints ready to pickup usually within 2hrs after uploading/ordering), high-quality, and have astounding prices ($0.13 for 4x6's to $3.00 for a 12x18). I just have to be careful how I prepare/crop my pictures before sending them. It took me a couple tries to get a feel for how closely they cut/trim their prints. They also do an excellent job processing film, for when you're feeling nostalgic or analog and they put high-quality scans on archival-quality CDs (really saves time).

I learned about mpix from Kelby Training. I was very pleased with their quality, fast shipping, and vast available print sizes. Their prices are higher than Costco's ($0.29 for 4x6's to $11.50 for a 12x18). But they deliver excellent results. The packaging is very good and secure. What sets mpix apart is the product selection they offer. Books, keychains, standout frames, wraps, calendars...they've got tons of ways to show your work.

One thing that both Costco and mpix do is print the filename on the back of each print. This is really helpful when you need to quickly find the photo again later. I highly recommend both of these companies. I have not had any problems so far and the service is excellent! Give it a shot and see for yourself.

easyexposure said
I like this company: http://www.whcc.com/

Actually Costco (i am not sure if you have it in Canada) can get it right from time to time . Their paper is kind of thin so. 

But it is so much more fun to print by yourself, of course if you have time and money. 

We do have Costco but I find the cost of membership to be prohibitive unless I need 240 rolls of toilet paper.  I will have a look at the website you mentioned and I when I get a chance I will compare the quality of services in the link that Mandrake provided.

I do enjoy printing myself because I get the picture immediately, and I can control the quality from every step. 

Actually Costco (i am not sure if you have it in Canada) can get it right from time to time . Their paper is kind of thin so. 

But it is so much more fun to print by yourself, of course if you have time and money. 

Brian Copeland said
And therein lies the rub....who has a reliable print service?

I've had no personal experience, but here's a start.

http://digital-photo-printing-.....views.com/

While it took some time to discover...(the long story short part), I was eventually happy to learn that you were.

I suggest that you find a reliable printing service.

It is much too expensive to to print at home.

I primarily use my laptop which is Windows 7.  It shares the printer.

I decided to start printing some of my favourite pictures after taking a bunch to Walmart Photocentre and being extremely unthrilled with the quality (cheap paper, very dark images, and the images looked flat and lifeless).

So I went to Staples and got some HP Premium Plus Photo Paper (4 p's for those following along), both in 8.5x11 and in 4x6.  I got new printer cartridges (didn't have much colour left, and no photo print cartridge.

170 bucks later, I was ready to print.

Printed a picture on 8.5x11 and was absolutely thrilled with the results.  The image was bright, crisp and full of life.  The paper is thick and just feels good (whatever that means). 

Now I decided I was going to do some 4x6's.  Yeah I forgot why I hated this printer.  With Windows 7 you can't do the 4x6 (or any upper tray photos) because of the driver.  That was back in 2009...what year is it now?  The only thing I could do was export the images to jpeg, copy them to the Windows XP machine, then print them from there because Windows XP drivers for that printer are more robust.  Odd that...

Anyway, to make a long story short, I absolutely love the quality of the print outs.  I worked out that the cost is about 5 times more expensive than Walmart Photocentre (maybe more), but the quality shows.

And this is how I spent my day off.

Thank you very much in advance!