I would like to hear from publishers on this, but scanning a photo will
decrease the quality of the image, not improve it.  All paper-based journals
that I know of have the facility to scan photographs and their scanning regime
is controlled to inhibit aliasing between the resolution of the scan and the
dot-resolution of their final printing mechanism.  Even better is to send them
(ideally) a transparency or (the next best thing) a negative.

And if you have a photo from a confocal, there is a great chance that you have
a digital file of the image already.  Moving from digital (the confocal) to
analog (photo) to digital (scanning) to analog (print) is not the best way to
publish data.  I even seem to remember a section in Jim Pawley's handbook on
the effect of aliasing and sampling.

Phil
At 14:30 19/11/98 +0800, wangkun wrote: 
>
> Dear All,
> I am considering purchase a scanner for scanning our experimental photo for
> publication in electronic journal.Previouslu our picture file was refused by
> journal for resolution of picture. Anyone have experience in utilization of
> scanner and its attached scanning software for the similar work. Can you
hive
> me some suggestion on how to choose an high effiency cost ratio for our
> aimes. Any feedback will be appreciated.
> Yours truly
> kun
>  
> Wang Kun    M.M.Sci.
> Department of Parasitology
> The Third Medical University
> Chongqing, P.R.China
> 400038
>  
>
> e-mail Adds: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
> Tel: 0086-023-68752278




Phil Williams
Lecturer in Biophysical Chemistry
Laboratory of Biophysics and Surface Analysis
School of Pharmaceutical Sciences
The University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD

Tel: +44 (0)115 9515025 or +44 (0)585 772666  Fax: +44 (0)115 9515110
[log in to unmask]        http://pharm6.pharm.nottingham.ac.uk/