Anthony...
On the subject of high res images for web use PS's Save for Web feature
automatically scales an image to the 72 dpi (ok...ppi for the purists here!)
resolution
100 x 100 pixel @ 4000ppi = 0.06 x 0.06cm. Saved by Save for Web option the
file is now a 100 x 100 pixel @
Shunith writes:
Saved by Save for Web option the file is
now a 100 x 100 pixel @ 72dpi/ppi for a
print size of 3.53 x 3.53cm. How d'you
retain your high resolutions?
By not using Save for Web or PS 7. I still use PS 5; I've never seen any
reason to upgrade beyond that. An ordinary Save
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
An ordinary Save As does not change the DPI.
Correct...
Save for Web sounds like just another gadget to me--another
bloated feature that Adobe added in order to try to persuade people to pay
a
few hundred dollars for their umpteenth upgrade of a product that
Shunith writes:
Mm well it does have it's advantages
Certainly if an upgrade provides something you need or want, no reason not
to buy it. But remember that software companies produce upgrades because
their business model requires you to buy their products over and over again
in
- Original Message -
From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Conversion to 72 dpi doesn't do anything, so you can skip that.
Anthony,
Could you kindly elaborate on that? Also, in a subsequent mail you said:
If by resolution you mean DPI, you can forget about
that--DPI is
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 3:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
No, I don't. You never know when you'll need an image _without_ sharpening
(remember, sharpening degrades image quality).
I don't
Stan writes:
What if the image is being prepared for a
website?
The procedure is the same, but the final size for the image is of course
quite small compared to the original scan.
I do set the JPEG compression a lot higher for Web use than for print use,
as download time is important for Web
: [filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
Re sharpening:
What if the image is being prepared for a website? Of the three
steps--resampling to get the right size and 72 dpi, converting to JPEG
format and sharpening--what is the ideal order? Should sharpening still be
the very last step?
Stan
-Original
Alex writes:
what would be preferred policy of image
offering for the public ? I mean small GIFs
as thumbnails linked to JPEGs of certain
resolution of JPEG only approach ?
It depends on your intended audience and the type of connections and
machines you anticipate that they will have.
] Re: PS sharpening
Alex writes:
what would be preferred policy of image
offering for the public ? I mean small GIFs
as thumbnails linked to JPEGs of certain
resolution of JPEG only approach ?
It depends on your intended audience and the type of connections and
machines you anticipate
to be for that ?
Regards,
Alex Z
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 10:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Stan writes:
What if the image is being prepared
I have my monitor usually set to 1280x1024,...
The display resolution of 1280 x 1024 has an aspect ratio of 5:4 instead of
4:3 like most of the others.
Photos displayed in this resolution will look squeezed. You better use the
resolution 1280 x 960 (or 1600 x 1200).
With kind regards,
Henk de
]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
I have my monitor usually set to 1280x1024,...
The display resolution of 1280 x 1024 has an aspect ratio of 5:4 instead of
4:3 like most of the others.
Photos displayed in this resolution will look squeezed. You better use the
resolution 1280 x 960 (or 1600 x
]
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:14 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
You're certainly correct Henk, thanks for pointing out to this fact.
Frankly, so far I didn't notice any visible artifacts caused by that which
is the reason I wasn't aware about the problem. Strange.
I tried 1600x1200
: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Alex..
You can always increase the font size on your desktop 1600x1200 gives
you a much larger area to play with... (increase font size by going to...
Settings - Advanced -General).
Cheers...
SD
- Original Message -
From: Alex Zabrovsky [EMAIL
]]On Behalf Of Bob Shomler
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 4:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
However, in terms of colors my graphics card/monitor combo works
with 32 bit color definitions.
Now, if I indeed need 24 bit color, how to tell Photoshop to convert
it from 32
Well, if the G450 works this way, I assume my G550 would do the same, right
?
So does that mean that the image itself is 24 color in PS while the 32 are
only relevant for monitor's appearance ?
Regards,
Alex Z
I'd say it is only relevant for the display adapter's performance.
As I understand
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Alex writes:
I have my monitor usually set to 1280x1024,
but as I infer from your explanations this
cannot
I found impossible to do Load Selection into the original image window
without making Save Selection (choosing All option) prior to that (in Edge
Mask image window).
Curious. I regularly use and have an action for this procedure. After creating the
edge mask in the filename copy window, focus
Anthony wrote:
In theory you can also downsample in one step and unsharp mask once, but
then you must calculate the proper radius based on the number of pixels lost
and unsharp mask up front. For example, if you downsample in one step of
500%, you'd use a radius of 4.9 pixels or so. I
Al writes:
Maybe I have missed it in an earlier post but, if
you are using your normal technique of halving the
image size, what are the unsharp mask settings you
use as a default?
Strength of 98, radius of 0.7, threshold of 2. Of course, this is a highly
subjective setting. I do note
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Strength of 98, radius of 0.7, threshold of 2. Of course, this is a highly
subjective setting. I do note that very small images usually require less
unsharp masking than very large images to get visually similar results, but
since the distinctions
I use strength 100, radius 1, threshold 1 for the
Epson 2450 and next for every halving of image size
(linearly) 25 to 30 works well. If your scanner adds
its own sharpening, the initial value should be less
for strength. The fine detail just seems to bubble up
through the various downsizings.
I find that the first sharpening, that applied
to the image from the scanner, needs much larger
strength and radius values than the second and
later sharpenings. Do you turn on sharpening in
the scanner?
No, I don't. You never know when you'll need an image _without_ sharpening
(remember,
Maris writes:
Brian said the file size was reduced, so there
was apparently resampliing (downsampling).
Or the amount of information in the file did not increase.
In any case, if one proceeds as he describes (changing the dimension of the
image to 11 inches in Photoshop), the results are as
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Maris writes:
[snipped]
Your hypothetical of entering 11 inches in
the new dimension, with the resampling box
checked or unchecked, would not result in
PS computing 11 inches x 4000 ppi.
PS would reduce the ppi proportionately
in either case.
Try
PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
I tried it. Leaving the Resample box checked does result in no change the
ppi Resolution.
Unchecking the Resample box does result in a change in Resolution.
Maris
It may produce better results--I don't know, not having compared. However, I
do know that upsampling in repeated small increments works a bit better than
one large upsampling step.
--
Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Robert Meier
Then
Brian writes:
If I scan a 35 mm slide or negative at 4000
dpi in a Nikon Coolscan 4000 and I want to make
a print in Photoshop, I alter the long dimension
to 11 inches (the short dimension ends up at
whatever to retain the proper dimensions).
Since this usually ends up in a file size that
Robert writes:
Excuse my ignorance but what is the logic doing
it this way instead of resample it directly to
the resolution you want?
It seems to give a better final result, as opposed to one single large
downsampling step, although I have not been able to rigorously verify this.
If you
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In theory you can also downsample in one step and unsharp mask once, but
then you must calculate the proper radius based on the number of pixels lost
and unsharp mask up front. For example, if you downsample in one step of
500%, you'd use a radius
David writes:
Just to clarify here: the sharpening with
radius of 4.9 pixels or so is applied _before_
downsampling by 500%, obviously. Right?
Yes, it would have to be, otherwise the information it needs would be gone.
However, I haven't actually done this, so I'm not sure of the details.
in either case.
Try it.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 2:32 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Brian writes:
If I scan a 35 mm slide or negative at 4000
dpi in a Nikon Coolscan 4000
Sharpening will not recover lost detail. It only creates an illusion of
sharpness, and it is very easy to overdo, so beware.
- Original Message -
From: Alex Zabrovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 23:53
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Anthony,
I would like to ask you a question about the proper interpretation of
downsampling. If I scan a 35 mm slide or negative at 4000 dpi in a Nikon
Coolscan 4000 and I want to make a print in Photoshop, I alter the long
dimension to 11 inches (the short
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Then Image - Image Size - change the resolution to 1/2 of the Resolution
shown, readjust the Document Size to what you want, click OK. It will be
downsampled by 1/2.
Continue doing this until the Resolution is what you desire.
Excuse
36 matches
Mail list logo
