pixels for a scanned 8x10

So a friend of mine just recently gave me a 2x3 picture of her husbands grandparents (the ONLY picture they have of them), she's asked me to crop them out but them on a different backdrop and print a couple 8x10. When I resized the picture to an 8x10 in PSE 8, it says the pixels are 98.8,
Is this enough to print a decent picture? or will it look horrible? I really don't want to waste any money by testing it myself.

Depends what your friend is happy with. The pixel count is very low as you already know. My R2880 will print at 180ppi without any noticable drop in quality but lower than that I can certainly see the difference.

The problem is that a 10x8 is going to be closely inspected. But surely a test print at that resolution on say an "enprint" size would not break the bank?

Not clear what that means, What are the pixel dimensions, long side and short side? At what ppi did you scan the original? It should be scanned at 1200 dpi (ppi) which for most decent quality flat-beds is the native resolution, anything more or less is software manipulation.

To see what an 8x10 will look like, view your image at 50% zoom. If the on-screen image is at least 8x10 inches and looks acceptable, the print will be similar.

tzalman wrote in post #10414598
Not clear what that means, What are the pixel dimensions, long side and short side? At what ppi did you scan the original? It should be scanned at 1200 dpi (ppi) which for most decent quality flat-beds is the native resolution, anything more or less is software manipulation.

To see what an 8x10 will look like, view your image at 50% zoom. If the on-screen image is at least 8x10 inches and looks acceptable, the print will be similar.

the dimensions 988 by 790, not sure what the dpi I was scanned, haven't really done a whole lot of scanning before, I have a canon all in one, I'll look into that.

100 pixels per inch won't look perfect, but it'll be ok. Replacing the background usually makes the image look a bit wrong though.

If you have the scanner, I'd just rescan it at a higher resolution -- at least 8x10 @ 150 ppi but like was mentioned before you can go higher, although if you use tiff to save the files high resolutions can lead to humongous file sizes.

An 8x10 @ 150 ppi comes out to 1200x1500 pixels, so you would scan the 2x3 photo at 600 ppi and crop to the 8x10 dimensions (or edit the original or whatever you are doing). Or, follow Elie's advice for the maximum res, 1200 ppi, which would of course give you a bigger buch of "stuff".

Well, if the original is a 2x3 print, I very much doubt that scanning at a higher resolution will yield much more information... 600ppi scan or a 1200ppi scan will give you more pixels, but not more information.

If you can get a hold of the negative however, you might stand a chance of good IQ.

René Damkot wrote in post #10419088
Well, if the original is a 2x3 print, I very much doubt that scanning at a higher resolution will yield much more information... 600ppi scan or a 1200ppi scan will give you more pixels, but not more information.

Not so René, Scan resolution is determined by two factors: A. The density of the sensels on the scan bar, which in a good scanner is usually 1200 ppi. This is fixed. B. The distance the bar moves between each scan. This is changeable and on a good machine the minimum is 1/1200 inch. So the 1200 ppi is real resolution. Any lower setting involves a physically lesser ppi in the B dimension and a downward resampling in the A.

No disagreements there.
But I doubt a 2x3" print has that much info... All you'll scan is more paper structure.

I haven't heard a definitive word as to how densely you can scan a print before it becomes totally inefficient. Anybody know a "hard" figure?

tonylong wrote in post #10423744
I haven't heard a definitive word as to how densely you can scan a print before it becomes totally inefficient. Anybody know a "hard" figure?

Not sure where the point is where it becomes inefficient, but I do know that I wouldn't bother scanning at less than 1200, especially for images that need a lot of retouching. At 1200 I retouch at 100% in PS to attack dust spots and small emulsion scratches/rips.

If in doubt go for the highest res scan. You can always down-rez after PP

+1.

tonylong wrote in post #10423744
I haven't heard a definitive word as to how densely you can scan a print before it becomes totally inefficient. Anybody know a "hard" figure?

It depends on the film type, the developing process, the print quality, the paper quality, the print process and the storage of the print.

Cheap film, processed and printed at a 1 hour lab is nearly worthless if enlarged more than double it's original size so 600dpi scan, reprinted at 300dpi, twice the size. Whereas I've seen contact prints from 35mm Kodachrome, scanned at 7200dpi and printed at poster size that look stunning.

Scanning inkjet prints above the resolution that they will be reprinted is pointless unless you want to spend ages removing moire and ending up with a blurred reproduction.