jeremy_horowitz
-
Posts
13 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by jeremy_horowitz
-
-
I wanted to post this question because I was recently in a situation
that made no sense to me.
I was at The Icon lab in L.A. and asked them about their negative
scanning services. The lady with whom I spoke (who I learned is the
head of their digital department) said that for their low-
level/rudimentary "crystal" scans, they had three levels, something
like 5-10MB, 10-20MB and 30+MB. They had corresponding costs, but
when I asked her what the resolution and/or size of the scans would
be, she said 300dpi at 100%.
I asked her: If the attributes of the scan are the same at each
level, what accounts for the bigger file? She didn't have an answer
except that more megabytes is better.
Am I missing something here? Theoretically, if you get a 5MB file
(for argument's sake) from a 300dpi/100% scan of a negative, a
bigger file would be the result of either a higher resolution scan
or higher magnification (say 600dpi/100% or 300dpi/500%)?
When I spoke with the people at Samy's Camera, another shop here in
L.A., they made much more sense, saying that one of their services
is to scan a negative at something like 1000dpi/100%, and you can
get a fairly large print out of that because even though the
enlarging reduces the resolution, it still stays at 300dpi or above
until you get to 12x16 (according to Samy's example).
So -- on a 1:1 basis (no variations in file processing, compression,
etc.), is it possible to have two negative scans at exactly the same
settings, yet have one scan yield a file that is many times larger
that the output of the other scan?
Color me a bit confused.
-Jeremy
-
Images created in Photoshop are just a display of pixels (including any text you create). When you print a Photoshop image, you see the pixels created by Photoshop that are intended to make the text look smooth, but it's mainly a lot of smart guessing by Photoshop.
By contrast, when you use a program like Adobe Illustrator (or Microsoft Word, for that matter), the text isn't just pixels. The text in the image is backed by a mathematical description of how -exactly- to render that text -- whether to the screen or to the printer.
For example, let's say the task is "draw a line on paper from point A to point B."
If you drew it the Photoshop way, you'd make one dot at point A, then another dot next to it, then another dot next to that one, and another...until you got to point B.
If you drew it the Illustrator way, you'd place your pen at point A and drag your pen to point B. And that's it.
Think about how your Photoshop-style drawing of the line would look: Like a bunch of pixels.
That's the essence of the distance. Photoshop prints a pixel-based representation of your text. Illustrator (and other programs like it), actually print your text (and other shapes) smoothly because it is recogized as text (and the other respective shapes).
For more, search the web for articles on "raster vs. vector" images.
Hope this helps!
-
<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3043075-lg.jpg"><br>
<em>Hollywood Elvis, August 2004</em></center>
-
Jerry:<br><br>
The setup I described above was fully manual -- no auto anything.<br><br>
-
Jared:<br><br>
I'll assume you have a light meter in your camera, and that you know the flash sync speed for your camera.<br><br>
To use fill flash with a hot shoe, set the aperture so that the shutter speed indicated on the camera's light meter is the same as the camera's flash sync speed. I advise manually setting the shutter speed to the appropriate sync speed as well.<br><br>
If you're really worried about the photos coming out, I would bracket with different apertures.<br><br>
This method works best for photos of people who are backlit (backs to the sun, etc.).<br><br>
<a target="mj" href="http://www.margyandjeremy.com/images/frontphoto-old2.jpg">This photo of me and my wife</a> was taken by a kind bystander with my camera, using the method described above.<br><br>
Good luck!<br><br>
-Jeremy
-
Both articles appear to have been under the heading "Defining Images". Here are the URLs:<br><br>
-
Don't miss the Santa Barbara Courthouse on Anacapa street, just a couple of blocks over from State St. The interior and exterior are really beautiful, plus there is an elevator to the observation deck atop the clock tower, where you'll get some beautiful views of the city.
See more here: http://www.santabarbara.com/points_of_interest/courthouse/default.asp
-
This past summer, I went to see the Ansel Adams exhibit at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. And, like yourself, having an on-again/off-again obsession with sharpness, I was really curious to compare my work with that of one of the great masters. I discovered that while some of the prints were so sharp you feel like the mountain will jump out of the photo and slice anything in its path, others were what I might call "sharp enough". In this exhibition, there were definitely some original prints around the 11x14 size (or larger) in which you could see a slight absence of sharpness compared with other prints, but I guarantee you 99.9% of people attending that exhibition didn't notice. And the reduction in sharpness I saw was only through close examination with my nose about 2 inches from the print. I say if it's good enough for Ansel Adams, it's definitely good enough for me.
That said, I do try for the sharpest prints possible. Right now, I'm in the midst of a personal project documenting the hidden and/or abstract beauty of Hollywood, the actual neighborhood in Los Angeles. I'm using Ilford's Pan F/ISO 50 for maximum grain, and I always go for the smallest aperture possible to get the shot that I want. And a tripod, of course. (Sorry I don't have any scans handy right now, but I'll try to get some up soon).
Anyway, from one "sharpie" to another, I say don't lose any sleep over it.
-
Regarding "...tolerance of dissent is the essence of a free society."
I would not say it is the essence, but certainly a hallmark of a free society.
-Promotion- of dissent, however, is not. That is what happens when tax dollars pay for dung in the exhibition halls of my (and your) museums. You can have your dung. You can exhibit your dung. But not on my dime. The government does not exist to promote dissent or, for that matter, blatant offensiveness.
If government is going to support the arts (and we can argue the importance of that in another thread), then I expect it to support art that sticks to generally accepted standards of decency. Everyone reading this thread knows that dung in plexiglass doesn't fit that definition. If you want to offend or disgust me, do it on your own money, and leave mine out of it.
I just had an idea: An opt-in checkbox on the yearly 1040 form indicating whether or not you support the funding of the NEA, much like the presidential campaign checkbox. Congress could establish a "per-capita" NEA tax amount. The number of checked NEA boxes multiplied by the per-capita value would be the NEA's budget for the year.
And if it worked, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting could be next...
-
Well, for years I had an old Olympus SP-35, handed down to me by my father, that made a "bzzzzzz-ting sound" on longer exposures. Whenever I think of that sound, I'm reminded of my Dad.
While I don't have vast experience with hundreds of cameras, I do like the authoritative "k-CHOONK" my Olympus OM-10 SLR makes. The first time my sister happened to hear it while standing next to me when I snapped a picture, she turned and remarked, "Damn!"
Maybe there's a market for fitting digital cameras with a sound module -- you could select from a library of different camera shutter sounds!
I remember reading about something like this for cars; it was a module shaped like a cassette tape, and fit into the cassette deck. It would sense the revving of the engine and output the sound of a pre-programmed hot rod through the sound system.
Anyway, there are my two cents.
-
Alan...
I've been having this exact problem as well. Could you forward me the suggestions that Symantec sent you? If they're not too intrusive (or complicated), I'll give them a try.
Thanks!
-Jeremy
(humanshave@yahoo.coM)
Please ! HELP
in Business of Photography
Posted