dave_powell2

You're most welcome, Hashim...and good luck with your tests, Fererica!

Sincerely,

Dave

Thanks Rich!

Dave

Interesting technique with the mirror, Helen!

Dave

Hi Hashim,

Good questions!

Q: Any advantage to resampling downwards before getting it to the printer or is it the same as letting the printer do the resampling?

A: Personally, I always do that (and I combine it with judicious cropping when the image's proportions differ from the desired print area's). Usually, though, letting a decent printer drop the pixels won't adversely affect the result (as long as the image proportions are OK without cropping).

Q: What happens when I send a file to the printer that is at something like 500 dpi when seeking a print size of 4x6... will the additional pixel density make for a *better print* than if at 300 dpi?

N: That depends on the printer. But in most cases, a drastically higher DPI accomplishes three things: expends more ink, lengthens the output time, and (sometimes) actually makes the ink "pool" rather unattractively on the paper! With most Epson printers, the recommended output DPI is 720 or a fraction thereof (such as 240 DPI), and many users print at 240 instead of 300, because they see almost no difference in output quality.

Hope that helps!

Sincerley,

Dave

Hi Ed,

I tried Googling "Wet Mounting System" + "Fernandez", and came up with zilch. Does he have a web site?

Many Thanks!

Dave

Hi Again Federica,

Just thought of another...hopefully finally better...approach to answering your question! According to dpreview.com, your 8MP camera produces a 2304x3456-pixel matrix at its highest resolution. When I create a dummy file in Photoshop with that exact number of pixels, the Image Size window tells me that (at a "Resolution" of 72) the file would print at 32x48 inches. With Resampling unchecked, entering 300 in the Resolution field changes this "Document size" to just under 8x12 inches (try this with one of your actual files).

So... if you actually want to output an 8x12-inch image (at 300 dpi), you're golden!

But if you want to print the image on smaller 8x10-inch paper, you'll need to crop and/or Resample the file down to as close as you can get to under 2400x3000 pixels (300 times 8x10). You could also let the printing device itself remove pixels, instead of your doing so through Resampling, which would probably work out OK.

But the REAL rub comes if you want to print the file on larger paper...say, at 12x18 inches in size. Here, you again have several options:

* Print the file as-is (at 300 dpi), which would leave a blank border around an 8x12-inch image on the 12x18-inch paper.

* Resample the file upward to as close to just under 3600x5400 pixels (300 times 12x18), and print it at 300 dpi (to pretty much fill the 12x18-inch paper).

* (If possible) have the printing device's operating resolution set down from 300 to 192 dpi, to lower its output resolution and again fill the 12x18-inch paper with your un-Resampled file. (Actually, this isn't as dumb as it sounds, since larger prints are usually viewed from further away...and within limits, can be printed at lower resolutions without compromizing their "apparent" quality.)

* Use whatever internal "upscaling" the printing device may have, to fill the paper with the un-Resampled image. This is what turned the 4-pixel test file in my last message into a 1-inch solid-black square... which demonstrated why Photoshop's resampling algorithm might give you better results than leaving this to a printing device's software.

By the way, the "Resolution" number that you see or enter in Photoshop's Image Size window is simply a tool to help you add or remove enough pixels to make the image print at a desired size using a desired output resolution. The Photohsop Resolution number is not actually sent to the printer with the image file! When the time comes to lay the image on paper, the printing device (or the printing lab) cares only that your file contains sufficient pixels to fill the desired print area at the desired output resolution.

To relate this to your camera again, its 2304x3456-pixel file will fill about 8x12 inches on your local print lab's paper (when output at 300 dpi) regardless of whether your Photoshop Image Size window says it's 32x48 inches (at 72 dpi) or 8x12 inches (at 300 dpi)!

Sincerely,

Dave

Nice scans, Rich!

Dave

CVS has done mine...though they (like many) probably send it out.

Dave

Hi Elliot,

If you have a broken or scrap lens lying around (and if you like tinkering), you can make a decent macro filter by removing the lens's front element. I did that with a broken Vivitar 35-105 zoom that I found at the dump...and its front element produces floral closeups that have better colors and less edge distortion than my Hoya macro filter set.

The tinkering that was necessary included: 1) removing the lens's front element, and 2) using step-up rings and "emptied" scrap filter rings to attach the element to the camera lens.

Sincerely,

Dave

Hi Dave,

A good strategy would be to buy filters that are 58mm or wider, and then purchase step-up rings to mount them on each lens. (But if your 28-to-80mm lens is the one with the 58mm thread, you may even want to standardize on a much larger filter diameter than 58mm, since the lens might vignette at its 28mm setting with a 58mm filter attached.)

Sincerely,

Dave

Hi wee beastie!

By its very nature, medium format shooting is more "deliberate" than 35mm or digital. So you might again miss some shots if you take any MF camera. My favorite MF cameras for light-weight traveling and quality results are the Bessa II folder (which is actually pretty solid and heavy) and the Kodak Monitor 620 (which is lighter and has a super-sharp Anastigmat Special f/4.5 lens).

But again, neither folder is ideal for grabbing quick shots! So for most traveling, I prefer to take either digital, or (in film) a Rollei 35 or the slightly larger and heavier Leica CLE...both of which produce wonderfully detailed negatives.

Sincerely,

Dave

Hi Again, Everyone!

On the drive in this morning, I thought of a little experiment that may help to make this a bit more clear. It's worth trying!:

1. Open your version of Photoshop (or Elements).

2. Create a New file only 2 pixels on each side (4 pixels in total), and in the color black.

3. The Image Size window will indicate that its "Document Size" (the size at which it will print) is .028 inches at a Resolution of 72 pixels-per-inch.

4. Print it...you'll see a tiny black square at the center of the paper.

5. Back In the Image Size window, make sure that Resample is not checked, and change the Resolution to 300. The window shows that you still have a 2x2 image matrix, but its print size is now only .007 inches.

6. Print it, and if you look real close, you can see a microscopic dot in the center of the paper. You did not actually make it a "higher-res image" (as the original poster asked about doing)...you only printed the original pixel matrix at a much smaller size.

7. Back in the Image Size window, with Resample still unchecked, drop the Resolution to 2 pixels-per-inch. The window shows that you still have a 2x2 image matrix, but its "Document" (print) size is now up to 1 inch square!

8. Print it, and the result will depend on your printer's internal algorithms. On my two printers (laser and inkjet), it actually appears as a solid-black 1-inch square. The printers did not give me a faithful rendition of my four data pixels, but instead, interpolated and filled in data on their own...using algorithms that may not be as good as Photoshop's.

This exercise with a small test file demonstrates two things:

* That changing the Resolution without resampling simply alters the physical print size (which is perfectly OK, if that size is what you want).

* That changing the Resolution without resampling doesn't avoid adding or interpolating pixels in printed output...it may simply leave that task to the printer's internal algorithms, which may not be as good (image-wise) as Photoshop's "professional-grade" Bicubic resampling!

Sincerely,

Dave

Hi Again Jerry,

I don't have that book, but I'm wondering if it's warning against doing a large upscaling in only one step? With one exception, if this is done, many images will indeed show more artifacts and greater softness than they need to. This is why many photographers upscale in "10% steps" with Bicubic resampling.

The one exception that I know of is when using Photoshop CS's "Bicubic Sharper" resampling...for it, Adobe has recommended doing the entire resample in a single step. That makes sense, because a series of "sharpenings" will probably add its own unwanted artifacts to the final print.

In any event, returning to Frederica's original question, the Canon 350D's images aren't 72-dpi files just because Photoshop says they are! They don't have a native "resolution"...only a fixed matrix of pixels. And changing the 72 to 300 without Resample selected does not accomplish her desire to change them to "300 ppi for printing purposes." It only tells her how big the images will print on a 300-dpi printer. If that size is fine, then she's good. But if that size is too small (or large) she'll need to resample up (or down).

Sincerely,

Dave

Hi Vikram,

Your high-res scans would seem to be sufficient for 10x8 prints output at 300 dpi (which would require 3000x2400 pixels), or for larger prints output at (say) 240 dpi.

Another factor to review might be the actual quality of the scans themselves. I once had high-res scans of this size come back to me with faint lines and speckles throughout. (I changed labs.) You may want to try one 8x10 test print, just to check this out.

Sincerely,

Dave

It is confusing, Jerry!

You said: "The new pixels should not be created when you want to enlarge an image that is not big enough."

Actually, if an image is "not big enough" (if it doesn't have enough pixels to print at your desired size and at the recommended printer resolution), then you MUST select "Resample," input the desired image size, and let Photoshop add pixels! That does affect image quality somewhat, but in reasonable enlargements, you won't see major problems.

All of photography entails compromizes. If an image isn't big enough (doesn't contain enough pixels), then you must somehow add pixels to it. This adding can be done either in Photoshop, or by upping a scanner's resolution (if the image file was created by scanning), or (if possible) by increasing a digital camera's resolution setting, to grab more pixels.

But if Photoshop tells you that an image "is 3x5 inches" at 72 dpi you must somehow add pixels to it (though not necessarily information), to get it to print at 3x5 inches at 300 dpi.

You also said: "So many times, someone takes an image that is low resolution (72 dpi) and just changes it to 300 dpi with the Resample Image box checked."

Yes, exactly! Image files contain a fixed number of pixels, which is independent of the resolution shown in Photoshop's Image Size window. The Image Size window simply reveals how large a file would print, if it were "put to paper" at 72 dpi (or, if Resample is not selected, at 240 dpi or 300 dpi).

A digital image file has no inherent size (in inches) until you select Resample, enter the resolution at which it wil be layed to paper, and then indicate the final print size. In some cases, pixels must be added before printing, and in others, taken away.

And yes, you can let your printer handle resizing, but its algorithms for doing so may not be as advanced as Photoshop's (especially when enlarging). (I ran afoul of this when I once let my Epson printer output an image at 8x10 inches, when Photoshop said that it would normally be a 4x5 at the output resolution. The result had a different look (which I rather liked)... sort of like an old-time newspaper illustration... but not one that I wanted in most of my prints! Maybe newer printers are better at resizing (especially upscaling), but I haven't upgraded yet!

Sincerely,

Dave

Hi Wigwam,

The 120 negs that I've scanned using the 4990 have (fortunately) been pretty flat. But the 4990's carriers (which are also a bit flimsy) have a plastic tab at the end of each track. And when I slide the end of the negative strip under the tab, the film is held more flat (especially closer to the end that is under the tab). This has been especially useful when scanning 35mm.

I'm wondering if the 4490's carriers have the same feature?

Sincerely,

Dave

Hi Laurie,

Don't know if it's convenient for you, but Apex Photo, in Winchester (about 6 miles north of Boston) does. They can develop, print, and scan 120 negs or slides. I just called, and (for example) it would cost about $5 each to scan 120 negs with enough resolution to print at 6x6 inches (at 300 dpi). (I assume that more detailed scans for larger prints would cost more.) They can also output the scans onto CDs as either JPEGs or TIFFs.

Here's their site, with directions:

http://www.apexphoto.us/

Tho I haven't used them to scan film, they've been skilled and conscientous on my other projects. And if you call or visit, tell 'em that the guy who does the digital-infrared prints sent you!

Sincerely,

Dave

Hi Tristan,

If such an adapter is out there, it will have to contain an optical element, since the Olympus system's lens-to-film "registration distance" is smaller than Nikon's (though the difference is tiny, and much smaller than between Nikon and other primary camera manufacturers). The exrta optical element would also have some negative impact on image quality as well.

Sincerely,

Dave

Hi Federica,

Just to restate all of the above in slightly different words, ppi (or dpi) is not a property of digital image files per se. It's how you tell Photoshop (or some other software/hardward system) how many of the image-file's existing pixels you want printed per inch of paper. This is why, if you change the dpi number from 72 to 300 with "Resample" unchecked in Photoshop, the resulting "image size" goes way down. The file itself hasn't changed, but the output size at which it would print at 300 dpi does.

In Photoshop, you then have to check "Resample" and enter your desired image size, to enlarge the file enough to print at that size at 300 dpi. And this enlargement does alter the image file...by adding pixels to it.

Sincerely,

Dave

You can also look at the Epson Perfection 4990. Here's a recent thread about it:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00K0cm

While it has pretty much the same specs as the V700, the 4990 doesn't support Epson's "fluid mounting" capabilities. That didn't bother me, though, since I (personally) couldn't see cleaning oil from glass and negatives after scans!

Still, if you want flat-bed scans that have a prayer of competing with drum or film scans, Epson's fluid mounting probably comes as close as you can currently get!

Sincerely,

Dave

Geeze, I compeletely forgot an add to Todd's first comment! A while back, I Googled "Argoflex 75" and found some other users' B/W photos that (even reduced for Web diaplay) were jaw-droppingly sharp and beeeoooooteeeful.

Sincerely,

Dave

"Ballroom"...I'm busting somethin' here! ;^*

Sincerely,

Dave

Hi D.O.

Since you mentioned "one-picture uploading," I'll describe a technique that you can use to post and display multiple images at one time. It is to use Photoshop's Canvas command to make a LOOOOONG vertical file that is less than 500 pixels wide. You can then paste in several individual JPEGs that are sized to the same width.

One drawback of this, though, is that the multi-image JPEG quickly becomes larger than photo.net's 100K posting maximum. The only way around this (as far as I know) is to make the entire file significantly smaller than 500 pixels wide and/or to really crank up its JPEG compression until it drops below 100K.

I used this technique for my two-image post in the following thread:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00K0cm

But I'd love to learn others' techniques as well!

Sincerely,

Dave

OH...And thanks too, SF Photo, for the review link. Just finished reading it. Very interesting. I don't own a film scanner for similar tests, but on my 2+GHz Windows XP Media Center machine, I haven't hada scan take longer than a minute. But the review does give me an idea...I should try 120 neg scans at 1200, 2400, and 4800 and see if deatils start to drop out anywhere.

Sincerely,

Dave