Well i think i'v got it(or most of it)now.Thanks everyone.
The pic's i'm working with are from a digital camera not scans,at least not yet.
I took Franks advice by doing a image resize thrn going back and looking
at the new "calculated" resolution.When i do a Picture Package and change
the resolution to the "calulated" value and print,it comes out nicely.
One other question.I have Photo shop on 2 computers,one is from the
photograper i bought the stuff from and the other is new.When i use the croptool
on the computer he used the marquee moves freely,were as on the new computer
marquee move as if constrained as in ortho mode of Autocad.I have looked at
the help screen until blue and cannot fiquire out how to turn this off.Hope that made
sense.
Dave
---- Begin Original Message ----
From: PAUL STENQUIST <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 08:19:21 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT... Photoshop & DPI
If your original scan includes a sufficient number of pixels, you can
resize in Photoshop without interpolation. (In the following examples,
I'm going to use made up numbers to illustrate the point, so all of you
mathematicians put your pencils away, because the numbers won't
calculate out exactly. )
What you must do is change the dpi as you change the dimensions of the
picture. For example, if I scan a neg to approximately 8 inch x 12 inch
dimensions at around 400 dpi, I can change it to 10 x 15 at about 300
dpi without altering the image. It's easy to see when Photoshop is not
interpolating when using the "Image Size" tool by keeping an eye on the
megabyte value at the top of the box. When, after choosing the
dimensions of your blowup, the box shows two megabyte values at the top
of the frame, you know the software is interpolating, EVEN IF THE VALUES
ARE THE SAME. At that point, you can just fool with the decimal places
in your resized photo until one of the megabyte values at the topof the
box disappears. That's Photoshop's way of telling you that it's not
going to fool with your pixels. For example, if you go from 12.13 inch
by 8.07 inch at 405 dpi to 15 x 10 at 324 dpi, you might get see
something like "56.5 M 56.5 M" at the top of the box. That means your
new sizing is close to the same but not exact enough. At this point, I
would start adding decimal places to the dimension value on the resized
picture. For example. I might try 15.1 inch, but that would probably be
too much (since I'm already at the same megabyte count. If I was at 56.4
meg it might be a good starting point). If it bumped my megabyte count
up to 56.6, I'd try 15.05. If that resulted in the second megabyte
dimension remaining the same, I'd add more decimals, 15.051. If that
didn't cause the second value to disappear, I'd try 15.052, then 15.053.
At some point, the second megabyte value at the top of the box will
disappear, and I'd be left with a single "56.5 M" value. I would then
know that my original scan and my resized pic had exactly the same
number of pixels, which means that to the computer, they're identical
and there is no need to interpolate. This may sound confusing, but it's
quite easy in practice. I'm no Photoshop expert and their may very well
be an easier way to do this than "guess and check," but it works for me.
Paul Stenquist
Scooterman wrote:
>
> I've got Photoshop AND PaintShop Pro (as I've mentioned on the list several times in
>the
> last month... IF anyone noticed).
>
> I've got a problem with that resizing idea being bantered about.
>
> Ya take a pic & get it into a digital format on yer 'puter somehow.
>
> Your one image becomes 3 images (the original, the copy in the buffer & the "one
>open" in
> the program)... resizing ~can~ create new pixels but you just lost ALL control of
>how it
> "resamples"... your film & metering & the REAL WORLD[tm] are still more complex that
> consumer grade software (unless you got that proggie from DreamWorks or NASA & have
a
CRAY
> to run it on).
>
> Here's what the proggie says:
> "Keep in mind that bitmap and vector data can produce different results when you
>resize an
> image. Bitmap data is resolution-dependent; therefore, changing the pixel dimensions
>of a
> bitmap image can cause a loss in image quality and sharpness. In contrast, vector
>data is
> resolution-independent; you can resize it without losing its crisp edges."
>
> "When an image is resampled, an interpolation method is used to assign color values
>to
any
> new pixels it creates, based on the color values of existing pixels in the image.
>The more
> sophisticated the method, the more quality and detail from the original image are
>preserved.
> The General Preferences dialog box lets you specify a default interpolation method
>to use
> whenever images are resampled with the Image Size or transformation commands. The
Image Size
> command also lets you specify an interpolation method other than the default.
> Nearest Neighbor (Jagged) for the fast but less precise method. This method is
recommended
> for use with illustrations containing non-anti-aliased edges, to preserve hard edges
>and
> produce a smaller file. However, this method can result in jagged effects, which
>become
> apparent when distorting or scaling an image or performing multiple manipulations on
>a
> selection."
>
> Gee... we're gonna use fuzzy logic to average the color of new pixtels.
> Sign me up for some of THAT. Not. Plus it's a PITA to get the proggie set JUST
>so.
>
> If this was so great why aren't lousy webcam shots "cleaned up" till one can see
birthmarks
> the model's mother never knew existed?? Eh?
>
> This isn't to start a pissin' contest over Photoshop. You like it, USE it. You know a
> no-brainer way to config it... SHARE it. I just haven't seen a whole lot in this
>program
> that goes above a 4 on the "Gee-Whiz" scale.
>
> Scoot
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
---- End Original Message ----
Pentax User
Stouffville Ont Canada
Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
