[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
Tony writes: This is only a minor sharpening to restore the sharpness of the original ... Sharpness cannot be restored, it can only be simulated. Sharpening causes deterioration in image quality, so it should be avoided until the image is about to be prepared for a specific use. I archive all my images without sharpening. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
Laurie writes: Theoretically maybe ... All images are bitmaps at the time of sharpening. The format in which they were or will be stored is irrelevant. Additionally, all sharpening degrades an image, so it should not be carried out for images that are being archived, as you may need the highest possible image quality later on. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
Ken writes: But when printing it's best to go direct from the TIFF isn't it? It doesn't matter. When producing for the web, yes, I go to jpeg and then sharpen. You can't. All images are bitmaps while you are manipulating them. JPEG and TIFF are just file formats. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
Preston writes: One pre-press expert in my area recommends ColorMatchRGB instead of Adobe98 for pre-press work. Is this a Mac vs. PC thing? No, it is more of a printed-on-paper vs. electronic-display thing. ColorMatchRGB is designed for print, whereas Adobe98 is for more general use and has a gamut somewhat larger than what will usually fit on offset printing. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
Ken writes: ... but could someone offer a technical explanation of why sharpening has so much more visible effect on jpegs as opposed to TIFFs? It doesn't. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
Laurie writes: ... how does one sharpen between the conversion stage and the compression stage? One does not. There seems to be a widespread misconception here. While you are editing an image, it _does not have_ a format; it isn't JPEG, or TIFF, or anything else. The image is stored on a file in JPEG or TIFF or whatever format you choose, but it has no format during editing, and so whether you edit a file opened from TIFF or JPEG makes absolutely no difference while you are editing. An image in an editing program is just a mass of pixels. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
Maris writes: Sharpening at that point was what I was suggesting, before saving as a more-compressed JPG. Sharpening permanently diminishes the quality of an image, and it also makes the resulting JPEG file somewhat larger. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
I support Ken. I'm currently scanning a large number of rolls of negative film. They are just 10x.6.67 inch by 72 ppi images for screen display. I'm keeping them in an electronic catalog of my images. Unless something has changed in Photo Shop 7, which I recently acquired, sharpening is much more noticeable on these small JPEGs than on 27MB TIFFs that I use for printing or creating slides. I would like to emphasize the word visible in Ken's question. Don At 10:22 AM 09/06/2002 +0200, you wrote: Ken writes: ... but could someone offer a technical explanation of why sharpening has so much more visible effect on jpegs as opposed to TIFFs? It doesn't. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
Tomek Zakrzewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: What color spaces is best to choose for the following purposes: - printed material, for example a magazine or a photographic book - stock photography (image bank) - inkjet and Maris V. Lidaka Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] suggested: I also would suggest Adobe RGB. I would not sharpen the images yet - sharpen when you are ready to print on inkjet or to send to the publisher, as your sharpening amount will probably be different. Some publishers will do the sharpening themselves AFAIK. --- Maris has excellent advice. For a fuller story, try a Googlesearch for: (color space RGB colormatch sRGB Adobe) and you will get lot's of informative links. One pre-press expert in my area recommends ColorMatchRGB instead of Adobe98 for pre-press work. Is this a Mac vs. PC thing? Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was at a recent event with industry experts and one gentleman who is highly respected in the area uses Colormatch RGB because of the large number of files created in Photoshop 4.0. Also, if a file is given to a non-color managed company, the Colormatch RGB image will survive a stripped out profile better in general because it closely resembles the Mac monitor space. The sacrifice is that bright blues and greens will be sacrificed a bit., which probably doesn't matter for offset printing, but might matter when outputting to a Lightjet or other continuous tone process. All the best! -Andrew Darlow Photography, Digital Print Consulting and Custom Editions Andrew Darlow Images International, NYC - www.andydarlow.com Author: Inkjet Tip of the Month Club (newsletter) To subscribe, send e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
So the moral of the story is you have to know your printing company and act accordingly. Perhaps save in Adobe RGB for now, and when you find a printer talk to them - you can then convert to Colormatch RGB if they are not color-management aware or if that's what they prefer. Maris - Original Message - From: Andrew Darlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 9:55 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes Tomek Zakrzewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: What color spaces is best to choose for the following purposes: - printed material, for example a magazine or a photographic book - stock photography (image bank) - inkjet and Maris V. Lidaka Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] suggested: I also would suggest Adobe RGB. I would not sharpen the images yet - sharpen when you are ready to print on inkjet or to send to the publisher, as your sharpening amount will probably be different. Some publishers will do the sharpening themselves AFAIK. --- Maris has excellent advice. For a fuller story, try a Googlesearch for: (color space RGB colormatch sRGB Adobe) and you will get lot's of informative links. One pre-press expert in my area recommends ColorMatchRGB instead of Adobe98 for pre-press work. Is this a Mac vs. PC thing? Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was at a recent event with industry experts and one gentleman who is highly respected in the area uses Colormatch RGB because of the large number of files created in Photoshop 4.0. Also, if a file is given to a non-color managed company, the Colormatch RGB image will survive a stripped out profile better in general because it closely resembles the Mac monitor space. The sacrifice is that bright blues and greens will be sacrificed a bit., which probably doesn't matter for offset printing, but might matter when outputting to a Lightjet or other continuous tone process. All the best! -Andrew Darlow Photography, Digital Print Consulting and Custom Editions Andrew Darlow Images International, NYC - www.andydarlow.com Author: Inkjet Tip of the Month Club (newsletter) To subscribe, send e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Color spaces for different purposes
Of course, I hope you understand that my question was rhetorical. I hope that you were just using my rhetorical question as a vehicle for expressing your remarks rather than taking it seriously as a literal question in need of an answer. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 3:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes Laurie writes: ... how does one sharpen between the conversion stage and the compression stage? One does not. There seems to be a widespread misconception here. While you are editing an image, it _does not have_ a format; it isn't JPEG, or TIFF, or anything else. The image is stored on a file in JPEG or TIFF or whatever format you choose, but it has no format during editing, and so whether you edit a file opened from TIFF or JPEG makes absolutely no difference while you are editing. An image in an editing program is just a mass of pixels. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Color spaces for different purposes
All images are bitmaps at the time of sharpening. The format in which they were or will be stored is irrelevant I have no problem with that. My reference was to the possibilities of separating the conversion process from the compression process when saving to JPG format and not with the state of the image at the time of sharpening. In practice, I do not think they are seperable so as to allow some other action to be carried out between the two processes, although it may be theoretically possible. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 3:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes Laurie writes: Theoretically maybe ... All images are bitmaps at the time of sharpening. The format in which they were or will be stored is irrelevant. Additionally, all sharpening degrades an image, so it should not be carried out for images that are being archived, as you may need the highest possible image quality later on. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
Laurie writes: In practice, I do not think they are seperable so as to allow some other action to be carried out between the two processes, although it may be theoretically possible. JPEG encoding requires the rough equivalent of a Fourier transformation on the data; once that is undertaking, bitmapped operations on the image are no longer possible. So one cannot really separate them. Not all encoding formats impose this constraint, but I haven't heard of any software that separates the two processes, just the same. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Color spaces for different purposes
We may have taken separate paths to get there; but I believe that we both reached the same conclusion for either different reasons or by using different means of expression. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 8:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes Laurie writes: In practice, I do not think they are seperable so as to allow some other action to be carried out between the two processes, although it may be theoretically possible. JPEG encoding requires the rough equivalent of a Fourier transformation on the data; once that is undertaking, bitmapped operations on the image are no longer possible. So one cannot really separate them. Not all encoding formats impose this constraint, but I haven't heard of any software that separates the two processes, just the same. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Color spaces for different purposes
Tomek writes ... What color spaces is best to choose for the following purposes: - printed material, for example a magazine or a photographic book - stock photography (image bank) - inkjet I want to scan my images in the most appropriate color space for the purpose but don't want to use some exotic ones. I'd prefer to stick to widely used color spaces (but which ones?) ... I'd submit AdobeRGB as probably the most respected and universally appropriate color space ... especially for distribution. Do note however, its gamut is too large for presentation at a wwwsite. For that, you'll need to convert your www presentations to sRGB. cheerios ... shAf :o) Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland www.micro-investigations.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 11:41:40AM +0200, Tomek Zakrzewski wrote: What color spaces is best to choose for the following purposes: - printed material, for example a magazine or a photographic book - stock photography (image bank) - inkjet I want to scan my images in the most appropriate color space for the purpose but don't want to use some exotic ones. I'd prefer to stick to widely used color spaces (but which ones?) I'm thinking of a small private image bank with my photographs so that I can sell a licence to use my images in different publications easily. Apart from the color space, I'd also like to know whether I should perform sharpening, although it should be the last stage in image processing and whether grain suppression is advisable (I can hear people moaning about lack of sharpness and big grain in images from 4000dpi scanners - they don't realize they are looking at very big pictures on their monitors). Personally I do some sharpening for an archival image that may end up going to different outputs. This is only a minor sharpening to restore the sharpness of the original which is almost always softened by the scanning process. Most images will benefit from further sharpening when targeting for a specific output but this should not really be done for an archival copy. As for colourspace - Adobe RGB is a good bet as it has a reasonable gamut. It's quite important to embed the colourspace profile in the image so the image can easily be converted to other spaces if needed. If you think that others may not be able to handle colourspace information it might be wiser to choose one with a more narrow gamut such as sRGB. -- Tony Terlecki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Running Debian/GNU 2.2 Linux Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 16:17:30 +0100, you wrote: Personally I do some sharpening for an archival image that may end up going to different outputs. This is only a minor sharpening to restore the sharpness of the original which is almost always softened by the scanning process. Most images will benefit from further sharpening when targeting for a specific output but this should not really be done for an archival copy. Speaking of sharpening - I think I understand this in a sort of sloppy intuitive way, but could someone offer a technical explanation of why sharpening has so much more visible effect on jpegs as opposed to TIFFs? Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
Probably the artifacts created in the compression process. It would probably be better to convert to JPG first and then sharpen. Maris - Original Message - From: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:05 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 16:17:30 +0100, you wrote: Personally I do some sharpening for an archival image that may end up going to different outputs. This is only a minor sharpening to restore the sharpness of the original which is almost always softened by the scanning process. Most images will benefit from further sharpening when targeting for a specific output but this should not really be done for an archival copy. Speaking of sharpening - I think I understand this in a sort of sloppy intuitive way, but could someone offer a technical explanation of why sharpening has so much more visible effect on jpegs as opposed to TIFFs? Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Color spaces for different purposes
It would probably be better to convert to JPG first and then sharpen. Theoretically maybe; but out of curiosity, how does one do this in actuality when one would have to first decompress the JPG file before one could carry out the sharpening operations. Afterwhich, one would then recompress the file again in its altered state which would be what typically causes the artifacts and deterioration in JPG files to begin with? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka Sr. Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes Probably the artifacts created in the compression process. It would probably be better to convert to JPG first and then sharpen. Maris - Original Message - From: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:05 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 16:17:30 +0100, you wrote: Personally I do some sharpening for an archival image that may end up going to different outputs. This is only a minor sharpening to restore the sharpness of the original which is almost always softened by the scanning process. Most images will benefit from further sharpening when targeting for a specific output but this should not really be done for an archival copy. Speaking of sharpening - I think I understand this in a sort of sloppy intuitive way, but could someone offer a technical explanation of why sharpening has so much more visible effect on jpegs as opposed to TIFFs? Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 11:56:29 -0500, you wrote: Theoretically maybe; but out of curiosity, how does one do this in actuality when one would have to first decompress the JPG file before one could carry out the sharpening operations. Afterwhich, one would then recompress the file again in its altered state which would be what typically causes the artifacts and deterioration in JPG files to begin with? Yes, I realized after I typed that what I actually do is resize the TIFF, edit, * sharpen * and THEN go to JPEG. It's in this resized TIFF that I see the increased sharpening or USM effects, over the raw intitial file. Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Color spaces for different purposes
One pre-press expert in my area recommends ColorMatchRGB instead of Adobe98 for pre-press work. Is this a Mac vs. PC thing? Primarily, yes it is both a Mac thing and a preferrential prejudice. From what I understand, the two are very similar in terms of the gammut that they cover. Maris's comment that Some publishers will do the sharpening themselves is more significant that it appears in his remarks. Most publishers not only prefer to do the sharpening themselves but actually do sharpen it themselves even if they receive an already sharpened file so as to bring it into conformity with their printer's needs. Moreover, most publishers prefer to work directly from the digital file rather than from an inkjet produced off that file; hence, they request or require the digital file and not the inkjet print. Thus, you would not know what sharpening would be required for the publisher's intended use; but they would. Given this, you would not want to sharpen the digital file that is supplied to them but give them an unsharpened final version. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Preston Earle Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 9:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes Tomek Zakrzewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: What color spaces is best to choose for the following purposes: - printed material, for example a magazine or a photographic book - stock photography (image bank) - inkjet and Maris V. Lidaka Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] suggested: I also would suggest Adobe RGB. I would not sharpen the images yet - sharpen when you are ready to print on inkjet or to send to the publisher, as your sharpening amount will probably be different. Some publishers will do the sharpening themselves AFAIK. --- Maris has excellent advice. For a fuller story, try a Googlesearch for: (color space RGB colormatch sRGB Adobe) and you will get lot's of informative links. One pre-press expert in my area recommends ColorMatchRGB instead of Adobe98 for pre-press work. Is this a Mac vs. PC thing? Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 11:33:05 -0500, you wrote: Probably the artifacts created in the compression process. It would probably be better to convert to JPG first and then sharpen. But when printing it's best to go direct from the TIFF isn't it? This is where I run into it. When producing for the web, yes, I go to jpeg and then sharpen. Actually, I often resize the TIFF to the pixel size I want, do the rest of my editing and then sharpen just before converting to JPEG. I get good results this way.Come to think of it, I see a lot more sharpening effect when the TIFF has been resized than before - let alone the JPEG. I also haven't experimented with the for print output setting in Vuescan - any idea what this does differently? Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
Sorry - I hadn't read this post when I sent the previous message. Perhaps you are over-sharpening? Also, are you sharpening just the Lightness channel or also the color channels? Maris - Original Message - From: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:58 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 11:56:29 -0500, you wrote: Theoretically maybe; but out of curiosity, how does one do this in actuality when one would have to first decompress the JPG file before one could carry out the sharpening operations. Afterwhich, one would then recompress the file again in its altered state which would be what typically causes the artifacts and deterioration in JPG files to begin with? Yes, I realized after I typed that what I actually do is resize the TIFF, edit, * sharpen * and THEN go to JPEG. It's in this resized TIFF that I see the increased sharpening or USM effects, over the raw intitial file. Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
Yes - definitely TIFF for printing, but sharpen after you resize. I'm not familiar with Vuescan's for print output setting, since I output to PS anyway. Maris - Original Message - From: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:55 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 11:33:05 -0500, you wrote: Probably the artifacts created in the compression process. It would probably be better to convert to JPG first and then sharpen. But when printing it's best to go direct from the TIFF isn't it? This is where I run into it. When producing for the web, yes, I go to jpeg and then sharpen. Actually, I often resize the TIFF to the pixel size I want, do the rest of my editing and then sharpen just before converting to JPEG. I get good results this way.Come to think of it, I see a lot more sharpening effect when the TIFF has been resized than before - let alone the JPEG. I also haven't experimented with the for print output setting in Vuescan - any idea what this does differently? Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Color spaces for different purposes
Alas, either I am misunderstanding you or I am terribly confused; both options are entirely possible. I would convert and sharpen before compressing If you convert any file format to a JPG format, are you not coverting and compressing at the same time? I did not think that in fact they are practically separate and distinct operations even if the act of coverting presents itself to the user as if it were being done in stages. Thus, if I am correct about the conversion and compression processes being from the users point of view for all intents and purposes one in the same, how does one sharpen between the conversion stage and the compression stage? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka Sr. Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 1:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes I would convert and sharpen before compressing. It may or may not help - I'm not an expert - but it would deal with any artifacts that might possibly be introduced in the conversion process itself. I would not compress, re-open and recompress absent drastic sharpening artifacts in the compressed JPG. Maris - Original Message - From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:56 AM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Color spaces for different purposes It would probably be better to convert to JPG first and then sharpen. Theoretically maybe; but out of curiosity, how does one do this in actuality when one would have to first decompress the JPG file before one could carry out the sharpening operations. Afterwhich, one would then recompress the file again in its altered state which would be what typically causes the artifacts and deterioration in JPG files to begin with? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka Sr. Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes Probably the artifacts created in the compression process. It would probably be better to convert to JPG first and then sharpen. Maris - Original Message - From: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:05 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 16:17:30 +0100, you wrote: Personally I do some sharpening for an archival image that may end up going to different outputs. This is only a minor sharpening to restore the sharpness of the original which is almost always softened by the scanning process. Most images will benefit from further sharpening when targeting for a specific output but this should not really be done for an archival copy. Speaking of sharpening - I think I understand this in a sort of sloppy intuitive way, but could someone offer a technical explanation of why sharpening has so much more visible effect on jpegs as opposed to TIFFs? Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Color spaces for different purposes
Ok, that makes more sense to me now. However, since the sharpened JPG file upon opening by an user may then need to be resized and sharpening is dependent on the image size, you have a problem. It will then need to be resharpened for it new size which may result in artfacts being produced since you will be sharping an image that has already has sharpening done to it prior to compression. I would think it would be preferable and even wiser to leave the image unsharpened and convert it to a JPG file, leaving any sharpening to the user who opens the JPG file and determines how and at what size the image is to be reproduced to do after resizing the image to what is wanted and prior to reproduction. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Durling Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 11:56:29 -0500, you wrote: Theoretically maybe; but out of curiosity, how does one do this in actuality when one would have to first decompress the JPG file before one could carry out the sharpening operations. Afterwhich, one would then recompress the file again in its altered state which would be what typically causes the artifacts and deterioration in JPG files to begin with? Yes, I realized after I typed that what I actually do is resize the TIFF, edit, * sharpen * and THEN go to JPEG. It's in this resized TIFF that I see the increased sharpening or USM effects, over the raw intitial file. Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
At this point it's moot since Ken said he resizes in TIFF and sharpens, but I think you are correct - conversion from TIFF to JPG reduces file size and apparently compresses, I would think to Maximum quality. Sharpening at that point was what I was suggesting, before saving as a more-compressed JPG. Maris - Original Message - From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 3:35 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Color spaces for different purposes Alas, either I am misunderstanding you or I am terribly confused; both options are entirely possible. I would convert and sharpen before compressing If you convert any file format to a JPG format, are you not coverting and compressing at the same time? I did not think that in fact they are practically separate and distinct operations even if the act of coverting presents itself to the user as if it were being done in stages. Thus, if I am correct about the conversion and compression processes being from the users point of view for all intents and purposes one in the same, how does one sharpen between the conversion stage and the compression stage? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka Sr. Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 1:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes I would convert and sharpen before compressing. It may or may not help - I'm not an expert - but it would deal with any artifacts that might possibly be introduced in the conversion process itself. I would not compress, re-open and recompress absent drastic sharpening artifacts in the compressed JPG. Maris [remainder snipped] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Color spaces for different purposes
At this point it's moot True, especially with regard to the original basis for the discussion. :-) However, it may not be moot with respect to spin-off issues. :-) conversion from TIFF to JPG reduces file size and apparently compresses, I would think to Maximum quality. Sharpening at that point was what I was suggesting, before saving as a more-compressed JPG Saving a file as a JPG file at a level of compression involving the least amount of compression would obviously result in much less lost empirical information (e.g., actual image data) than to save at higher compression levels; however, I think it is questionable if the remaining empirical data would represent maximum quality in all cases. But to change the existing data in the original JPG file by sharpening and then resaving the result to a more compressed state is one of the sorts of actions which tends to produce the often found JPG artifacts and deterioration of the image that such a file can produce. Obviously, the more often one changes the level of compression in the resaving of an openned JPG file as well as the more information that one changes between such compressions the greater the possibility of artifacts and deterioration of the resulting image. At least, as far as the earlier versions of JPG ( cannot speak for JPG 2000), the compression was a lossy operation in which algorithms were used during compression to discard redundant data and to generate new data based on the retained data and the algorithm upon expanding the file. To recompress at a new level means that one would be applying the algorithm to increased levels of artificially created simulated data with each such resaving at a different level. Thus, the net result would be to be creating or interpolating new data based on existing data that itself was artifically created by a similar method with less and less of the data that makes up the file being the original data from the capture. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka Sr. Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 4:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes At this point it's moot since Ken said he resizes in TIFF and sharpens, but I think you are correct - conversion from TIFF to JPG reduces file size and apparently compresses, I would think to Maximum quality. Sharpening at that point was what I was suggesting, before saving as a more-compressed JPG. Maris - Original Message - From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 3:35 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Color spaces for different purposes Alas, either I am misunderstanding you or I am terribly confused; both options are entirely possible. I would convert and sharpen before compressing If you convert any file format to a JPG format, are you not coverting and compressing at the same time? I did not think that in fact they are practically separate and distinct operations even if the act of coverting presents itself to the user as if it were being done in stages. Thus, if I am correct about the conversion and compression processes being from the users point of view for all intents and purposes one in the same, how does one sharpen between the conversion stage and the compression stage? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka Sr. Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 1:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes I would convert and sharpen before compressing. It may or may not help - I'm not an expert - but it would deal with any artifacts that might possibly be introduced in the conversion process itself. I would not compress, re-open and recompress absent drastic sharpening artifacts in the compressed JPG. Maris [remainder snipped] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
