Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,492   Posts: 1,542,976   Online: 854
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,967
    Images
    1

    Scanning for Gallery, Some APUGers know what to do

    Shouldn't this be discussed at DPUG? ;-)
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  2. #12
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,837
    Images
    108
    Felinik points to a site and site points to herebelow summary. 72 dpi is important for text not image.

    The 72 or 96 dpi numbers are NEVER used to show images on the monitor screen. There is no concept of inches or dpi in the video system. Those logical inch dpi numbers are only used as a crude approximation to size text fonts on the screen. The size results are not very accurate, but we have nothing better for text fonts. These numbers have absolutely NOTHING to do with showing images on any screen, no way, no how, not then, not now, no matter how many times you hear others that don't understand it tell you otherwise (they are also victims, and are just parroting what they heard too). Images already have a size in pixels (the 412x324 pixel images above), and the video system simply shows those pixels directly, one for one. Video only shows pixels. This is the easiest possible result. Don't make it be hard, the correct way is much easier. If you show a 412x324 pixel image on the screen, you will see 412x324 pixels. That's all there is to it, how things actually work, the only theory that will allow us to predict accurately what will actually happen. You can clearly see this is true if you will just look at what actually happens on the screen. Dpi is not a factor on the screen, and this is one of the most basic and necessary fundamentals of digital images.

    Reality goes much better if we forget about 72 dpi, and instead simply create the number of pixels that we want to see on the screen.

  3. #13
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,837
    Images
    108
    Shouldn't this be discussed at DPUG? ;-)
    No, Herr Politzei !

  4. #14
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,107
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by rich815 View Post
    Shouldn't this be discussed at DPUG? ;-)
    This is a legitimate concern for posting images in the APUG gallery. Short of mailing prints around the globe, I am fine with this conversation.
    I brought up that I feel more people should put a few images up to show what makes them tick.

    Also any "analog only" image maker would be very hard pressed to find a competition/exhibition that accepts slides or prints rather than a disk or .jpegs and or an on-line entry where you attache files.

    This is part of the life of anyone interested in working beyond the reach of the post-office... and that is dying and costly anyway.

  5. #15
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,107
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac View Post
    No, Herr Politzei !
    +1

  6. #16

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Greenville SC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    271
    Don't sweat the 72 dpi thing. I usually reduce to around 100dpi for emailing and web upload. Some sites force you to reduce the file size to a certain size to minimize bandwith. That may necessitate that you reduce the file to 72 dpi, or reduce the dimensions of the image.

    DPI and dimensions work conversly. If you scan an image at 8X10 and 300dpi, then you enlarge it to 16X20, you are effectively cutting the resolution in half. If you reduce the same file to 4x5, you will double the pixel count. There are settings in Photoshop that you need to be familiar with. One is the "resample image" box in Image Size dialogue. With the box un clicked, it will recalculate resolution as I described above. If you click the box, Photoshop will decide what to do with the pixels. If you reduce the image to 4x5, it will keep your image at 300dpi and essentially "throw away" the extra pixels. On the other hand, if you increase the size, it will continue to say 300 dpi, however, you will NOT have actually gained any resolution! It will interpolate and guess what it thinks it should put there, but effective resolution has NOT increased!

    You also asked about high pass. Specifically in Photoshop, the High Pass filter is something you would apply to a duplicated layer, then blend it into the original image. An easier way to acheive that is the Unsharp Mask filter I described. It is essentially a high pass filter, that you can control the paramaters, and it automatically blends itself. Be very subtle with this. Its not intended to drastically change the image. Just enough to sharpen the edges a little.

    Hope this helps.

  7. #17
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,967
    Images
    1

    Scanning for Gallery, Some APUGers know what to do

    So no one here knows what a winking symbol means? ;-)
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  8. #18
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,308
    Images
    225

    Scanning for Gallery, Some APUGers know what to do

    You can't talk about this here go to DPUG :-p (this is a semi-joke, because if I were asking that's why I would be told hehe).


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  9. #19
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,370
    Images
    60
    This topic is specifically approved for APUG - it is the only "how-to" scanning topic that is.

    For those who have larger prints that won't scan in one pass on their scanners, there actually is a useful free, Microsoft product that does a good job at stitching images.

    It is called Microsoft Research Image Composite Editor (or Microsoft ICE) and can be found here: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/...roups/ivm/ice/

    Did you ever expect to see the words "useful free, Microsoft product" together?

    And with respect to Umut's initial question, I would suggest you look carefully at the installation guide for gallery uploads - particularly the size limits.

    I'm slowly discovering some of the complexities of re-sizing for the web. Certainly it seems to help a bit to re-size in stages, with close examination and some sharpening between each step.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  10. #20
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,308
    Images
    225

    Scanning for Gallery, Some APUGers know what to do

    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    This topic is specifically approved for APUG - it is the only "how-to" scanning topic that is.

    For those who have larger prints that won't scan in one pass on their scanners, there actually is a useful free, Microsoft product that does a good job at stitching images.

    It is called Microsoft Research Image Composite Editor (or Microsoft ICE) and can be found here: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/...roups/ivm/ice/

    Did you ever expect to see the words "useful free, Microsoft product" together?

    And with respect to Umut's initial question, I would suggest you look carefully at the installation guide for gallery uploads - particularly the size limits.

    I'm slowly discovering some of the complexities of re-sizing for the web. Certainly it seems to help a bit to re-size in stages, with close examination and some sharpening between each step.
    Oh ok.

    I've found that with certain programs like Lightroom, there is an option to export as a certain size, you can select "long edge" and "850 pixels" and this being the max size APUG will allow of 850 pixels usually makes a nice crisp image, I don't change the exported amount of detail, I keep the export at 300dpi but don't put size limitations on the file install (like requiring the file to be no more than 100k) but let it do it's thing... If I limit the size, my images aren't as crisp.

    Hope that helps.

    EDIT: Also, if I DON'T define the "long edge" pixel count, and the size is larger than 850 pixels, then when APUG re-sizes the image, often the colors and tones are off, I know Sean has said their server SHOULDN'T affect the image colors, but in my experience it does, so make sure you creat a size under the 850 limit or you may run into issues with the "look" of your image not matching the original on the computer.


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin