[filmscanners] RE: Scanning Overexposed Slides
Sadly the big problem with Luminosity channel in LAB is it is a very coarse control. Incredibly, in Adobe's infinite wisdom (similar to the fashion that PSCS is the first product to fully support 16-bit operation throughout, as far as I understand it) the L channel operates on a scale of 100, whereas red, green and blue channels in RGB mode operate on a scale of 255. Adobe continues to prove it's bonkers. Maybe one day they'll fix it. In the meantime, yes, L channel needs to be used very delicately. Jawed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Bond Sent: 24 November 2004 23:19 So far, the most promising approach seems to be to change to LAB colour and use a gentle Curves adjustment on the Luminosity channel to shift the highlights back towards the mid-tones and repeat the same adjustment several times. If I try to do it all in one big Curve adjustment, it starts to look nasty very quickly (due to my lack of proficiency with curves rather than any deficiency in PS!). I don't think the recovered images will ever look brilliant but at least my wife might get some mementos of her Spanish trip. Al Bond Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals?????
Date sent: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:12:13 -0600 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals? I use the program frequently; and find that for most upsampling within the normal ranges, it is not all that much different from Photoshop's Bicubic methods. It is in the extreme ranges of upsampling that the difference may begin to appe arandGFmaybegintoshine. What I do not understand is, if you are concerned with quality, why are you saving your digital camera captures to a Jpeg format which uses lossy compression and which most digital cameras will not let you save captures at resolutions in the 300 ppi range but tend to limit one to capturing at resolutions less than 300 ppi. If it were me, I would be saving the captures to Tiff format files which most cameras allow to be saved at 300ppi resolutions. My canon G2 digital does not offer the tiff option but offers Raw format which I believe can be converted to tif.Would such a conversion give me the benefit you mention ? Resolutions of 72 ppi are common for web use but not for printing and especially not for large prints; and Jpeg format is used so that the user can capture on one card more images (assuming that they will only be used for viewing online or via monitors or will only be printed at 4 x 6 sizes at best). Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
Well, I do not own that camera and am not familiar with it; but I assume that if you look in the manual you will find that you can capture your images at around 300 dpi and save them to a tiff format; but capturing them at a high resolution around 300 dpi as a RAW file would also be good, as long as you have an OEM program or Adobe's RAW application to work with them prior to saving them as a TIFF. After you save them as a TIFF (or PSD if you use Photoshop) format file, you can than manipulate and edit them image editing programs like Photoshop, including using interpolation if necessary. The last thing I would suggest if you are shooting serious pictures is to capture and save them as 72 dpi Jpeg files unless you are shooting exclusively for internet use or refrigerator door snapshot prints. Even if those are some of the uses that the image might be put to, I would shoot at maximum resolution and save without compression or if necessary with lossless comprssion so as to have the highest quality original possible; You can always convert that original into a compressed Jpeg for use on the internet and you can always downsample the image resolution to 72 dpi after the fact (both of which I would save as different working copies of the file so as to retain the original file. In your case, I would archive the original RAW file and make a working TIFF copy for use in editing and printing or from which I would make any jpeg files. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Myles Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 10:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals? Date sent: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:12:13 -0600 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals? I use the program frequently; and find that for most upsampling within the normal ranges, it is not all that much different from Photoshop's Bicubic methods. It is in the extreme ranges of upsampling that the difference may begin to appe arandGFmaybegintoshine. What I do not understand is, if you are concerned with quality, why are you saving your digital camera captures to a Jpeg format which uses lossy compression and which most digital cameras will not let you save captures at resolutions in the 300 ppi range but tend to limit one to capturing at resolutions less than 300 ppi. If it were me, I would be saving the captures to Tiff format files which most cameras allow to be saved at 300ppi resolutions. My canon G2 digital does not offer the tiff option but offers Raw format which I believe can be converted to tif.Would such a conversion give me the benefit you mention ? Resolutions of 72 ppi are common for web use but not for printing and especially not for large prints; and Jpeg format is used so that the user can capture on one card more images (assuming that they will only be used for viewing online or via monitors or will only be printed at 4 x 6 sizes at best). Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
The dpi setting of a digital camera file is utterly irrelevant here. Different cameras output their files (no matter their format) at fixed dpi settings. Different manufacturers of digital cameras have different norms for dpi, but it has no impact whatsoever on resolution or print size. A 2560x1920 file at 72dpi or 300dpi is identical. Choosing TIFF or RAW solely based on dpi is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the key parameter of digital camera files, pixel-dimensions. The quality differences you may observe between maximum resolution JPEG, TIFF and RAW files have absolutely nothing to do with the dpi setting recorded in a digital camera file. Jawed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of LAURIE SOLOMON Sent: 25 November 2004 17:36 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals? Well, I do not own that camera and am not familiar with it; but I assume that if you look in the manual you will find that you can capture your images at around 300 dpi and save them to a tiff format; but capturing them at a high resolution around 300 dpi as a RAW file would also be good, as long as you have an OEM program or Adobe's RAW application to work with them prior to saving them as a TIFF. After you save them as a TIFF (or PSD if you use Photoshop) format file, you can than manipulate and edit them image editing programs like Photoshop, including using interpolation if necessary. The last thing I would suggest if you are shooting serious pictures is to capture and save them as 72 dpi Jpeg files unless you are shooting exclusively for internet use or refrigerator door snapshot prints. Even if those are some of the uses that the image might be put to, I would shoot at maximum resolution and save without compression or if necessary with lossless comprssion so as to have the highest quality original possible; You can always convert that original into a compressed Jpeg for use on the internet and you can always downsample the image resolution to 72 dpi after the fact (both of which I would save as different working copies of the file so as to retain the original file. In your case, I would archive the original RAW file and make a working TIFF copy for use in editing and printing or from which I would make any jpeg files. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Myles Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 10:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals? Date sent:Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:12:13 -0600 Send reply to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals? I use the program frequently; and find that for most upsampling within the normal ranges, it is not all that much different from Photoshop's Bicubic methods. It is in the extreme ranges of upsampling that the difference may begin to appe arandGFmaybegintoshine. What I do not understand is, if you are concerned with quality, why are you saving your digital camera captures to a Jpeg format which uses lossy compression and which most digital cameras will not let you save captures at resolutions in the 300 ppi range but tend to limit one to capturing at resolutions less than 300 ppi. If it were me, I would be saving the captures to Tiff format files which most cameras allow to be saved at 300ppi resolutions. My canon G2 digital does not offer the tiff option but offers Raw format which I believe can be converted to tif.Would such a conversion give me the benefit you mention ? Resolutions of 72 ppi are common for web use but not for printing and especially not for large prints; and Jpeg format is used so that the user can capture on one card more images (assuming that they will only be used for viewing online or via monitors or will only be printed at 4 x 6 sizes at best). -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004 -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: Well, I do not own that camera and am not familiar with it; but I assume that if you look in the manual you will find that you can capture your images at around 300 dpi and save them to a tiff format; but capturing them at a high resolution around 300 dpi as a RAW file would also be good . . . The last thing I would suggest if you are shooting serious pictures is to capture and save them as 72 dpi . . . -- With all this discussion of file resolution, I feel I should point out again that *files* don't really have a resolution. That is an attribute that's assigned when the file is printed or displayed. Files have size (in pixels), and a 3000x2100-pixel file can be 300-dpi(ppi) (hi-res) and be reproduced at 10x7 or it can be 72-dpi(ppi) (lo-res) and be reproduced at about 42x29. There is nothing about an image file that makes it hi-res or lo-res. The same file can be hi-res or lo-res depending on the intended output size. Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
I beg to differ with you; but I am not going to get into a food fight with you over it. In the case of RAW, you are correct the dpi is somewhat irrelevant in that raw files do not contain any reference to resolution per se only to the size of the image X x Y pixels; however, if you save to a standard non-RAW format, resolution does matter in that it is made part of the file metadata which is used to instruct applications how to render the image in the image file. However, in terms of the camera, there is not specific settings that use the terminology or provide for options in ppi or dpi terms per se. The frequently set the effective resolutions in terms of the maximum umber of pixels along the longest side that are captured but assume that is will be divided by 300 dpi when written to the standard non-raw file format. This is what allows them to point to print sizes that can be produced at different quality levels depending on the quality level/file format combination selected. But more importantly, many if not all cameras do put resolution limitations on what can be saved when it is being saved to standard non-RAW files. The two Nikon digital cameras and the Kodak pro 14/n that I own will not allow one to save images to Jpeg file formats with resolutions certain maximum effective resolution; wherein the TIFF format permits the highest ant the JPEG format allows for lesser effective resolution depending on the compreesion level selected. To wit, capture an image at each of the available quality and format combinations your camera allows (except RAW) and open each image without any manipulation in Photoshop and check the resolution of the opened image in the Photoshop Image/Image Size box in the Resolution space. I think you will find that they will have different resolutions (dpi/ppi). This is not after any resampling or after the image has been through the printer and produced as a hard copy but as it is rendered on the monitor display in ppi directly as imported from the camera flash card. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jawed Ashraf Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 12:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals? The dpi setting of a digital camera file is utterly irrelevant here. Different cameras output their files (no matter their format) at fixed dpi settings. Different manufacturers of digital cameras have different norms for dpi, but it has no impact whatsoever on resolution or print size. A 2560x1920 file at 72dpi or 300dpi is identical. Choosing TIFF or RAW solely based on dpi is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the key parameter of digital camera files, pixel-dimensions. The quality differences you may observe between maximum resolution JPEG, TIFF and RAW files have absolutely nothing to do with the dpi setting recorded in a digital camera file. Jawed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of LAURIE SOLOMON Sent: 25 November 2004 17:36 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals? Well, I do not own that camera and am not familiar with it; but I assume that if you look in the manual you will find that you can capture your images at around 300 dpi and save them to a tiff format; but capturing them at a high resolution around 300 dpi as a RAW file would also be good, as long as you have an OEM program or Adobe's RAW application to work with them prior to saving them as a TIFF. After you save them as a TIFF (or PSD if you use Photoshop) format file, you can than manipulate and edit them image editing programs like Photoshop, including using interpolation if necessary. The last thing I would suggest if you are shooting serious pictures is to capture and save them as 72 dpi Jpeg files unless you are shooting exclusively for internet use or refrigerator door snapshot prints. Even if those are some of the uses that the image might be put to, I would shoot at maximum resolution and save without compression or if necessary with lossless comprssion so as to have the highest quality original possible; You can always convert that original into a compressed Jpeg for use on the internet and you can always downsample the image resolution to 72 dpi after the fact (both of which I would save as different working copies of the file so as to retain the original file. In your case, I would archive the original RAW file and make a working TIFF copy for use in editing and printing or from which I would make any jpeg files. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Myles Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 10:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals? Date sent:Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:12:13 -0600 Send reply to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
Preston, technically you are correct in saying failes do not have resolution and even in saying that their contents do not either; but standard non-RAW file formats do contain metadata which furnish rendering instructions which tell the program to render the 3000x2100 pixels or what have you in a certain way at a certain resolution on a monitor display or in a print. This rendering in effect will determine the dimensions of the display or print in terms of its rendered output size. It also is what determines what the original directly imported into Photoshop image will have as its given resolution in dpi/ppi as found in the Photoshop Image\Image Size resolution box prior to any changing of the file by the user. In short, I was suggesting not to save the captured image in JPEG format with the selection of either the low or medium quality settings and sometimes even the Fine setting if that is the next to highest setting; nor would I recommend saving the file to a TIFF format using the Low, Medium, and sometimes Fime settings. By using the highest setting or option available on the camera which usually can be slected for the TIFF format and not the JPEG format (we are not talking about RAW formats here), you will get the best image in quality and resolution to use as the archival basis for genrating working copies at resolutions and image sizes for uyse in the varied purposes that the image might be used ( i.e., on the internet, printed via inkjet, or reproduced via printing press for puting on the refrigerator, greeting cards, displaying on a wall, or for publication). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Preston Earle Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 12:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals? LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: Well, I do not own that camera and am not familiar with it; but I assume that if you look in the manual you will find that you can capture your images at around 300 dpi and save them to a tiff format; but capturing them at a high resolution around 300 dpi as a RAW file would also be good . . . The last thing I would suggest if you are shooting serious pictures is to capture and save them as 72 dpi . . . -- With all this discussion of file resolution, I feel I should point out again that *files* don't really have a resolution. That is an attribute that's assigned when the file is printed or displayed. Files have size (in pixels), and a 3000x2100-pixel file can be 300-dpi(ppi) (hi-res) and be reproduced at 10x7 or it can be 72-dpi(ppi) (lo-res) and be reproduced at about 42x29. There is nothing about an image file that makes it hi-res or lo-res. The same file can be hi-res or lo-res depending on the intended output size. Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
Put simply, you're confused by the way that certain software applications (e.g. Photoshop or scanner software such as Nikon View) allow the user to specify the pixel-dimensions of a destination image by specifying dpi and linear dimensions (in units that are not pixels - e.g. by requesting an 8 inch picture on the longest dimension, at 300dpi). The fact that these applications allow the user to avoid thinking in terms of the number of pixels per side in an image does not in any way alter the fact that the quality settings of a digital camera do not include manipulation of the dpi setting. Digital cameras' size/resolution quality is only determined by file format (JPEG, TIFF, RAW etc.) and pixel-dimensions. JPEG usually has a sliding scale of quality values that the photographer can select, compromising picture quality against storage card capacity. The digital photographer cannot directly manipulate dpi in the camera, and even if it was possible it would be meaningless, since the pixel-dimensions of the file are what determine resolution. If you examine the Image Size dialog in Photoshop you will discover that it is possible to arbitrarily alter the dpi setting of a picture and in doing so, the pixel-dimensions of the picture will not change. It is merely a question of asking Photoshop not to resample the picture whilst altering the dpi setting. This is often a handy first step in performing a re-size in order to take a source picture and transform it into the correct number of pixels to print/show on a device at a given size. Photoshop allows the photographer the chance to perform this sizing operation without having to calculate the pixel-dimensions of the destination image. The second step is to re-open the Image Size dialog and turn on Resample Image, and then enter the dimensions in the desired units (e.g. 8 inches). Jawed Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
From: LAURIE SOLOMON Preston, technically you are correct in saying failes do not have resolution and even in saying that their contents do not either; but standard non-RAW file formats do contain metadata which furnish rendering instructions which tell the program to render the 3000x2100 pixels or what have you in a certain way at a certain resolution on a monitor display or in a print. This rendering in effect will determine the dimensions of the display or print in terms of its rendered output size. It also is what determines what the original directly imported into Photoshop image will have as its given resolution in dpi/ppi as found in the Photoshop Image\Image Size resolution box prior to any changing of the file by the user. Nobody pays attention to the ppi values in an image file. When you view an image on the screen, you either get one pixel per pixel, or an image that is somehow fit to the window--the ppi value plays no role. When you load an image into Photoshop, and open the Print With Preview dialog, the ppi value is used as a starting point for the print size, but no one blindly prints at that size, one always overrides it to get the desired print size. This question keeps coming up. It would have been better had the inventors of image file formats not included any ppi fields. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
