John Di Leo

again, thanks to all. I uploaded a couple of photos, during the process they showed prices--that I could adjust-- for sizes up to 16x20. So far, I don't see a way of telling them "don't enlarge to 16x20. I have a call into them to find out how to limit size availability. I am fine with only going up to 11x14 as long as the ppi will support it.

I am going to see if I can get a test print out of them, saying I want to see what MY product looks like. Thanks to all for the great advice, a real education.

excellent discussion. It would seem that it is important for me to find out from the online house what printer they are using, if any sharpening tools or resampling are appropriate, and any other specific direction from them. If their printing is in house, they should know or could get the answers. If they out-source, I may be SOL if they cannot get the info, but that might say something about their quality control. This is what they say about file size vs print size, no mention of sharpening, or printer used, just this: "Your image must be: A JPEG file At least 1200 pixels x 1500 pixels Less than 50MB If you're selling prints, here’s a general rule of thumb regarding image size: the dimensions of your JPEG file should be at least the size of the print, multiplied by 150 with a DPI of 150 or: (Desired print length x 150) x (Desired print width x 150) at 150 DPI For example, if you want to sell an 8x10 print, the image size should be 1200 pixels (8 x 150) by 1500 pixels (10 x 150) at 150 DPI." That's it.

thanks to all...I appreciate the info, opinion and advice. Tim... "there seriously is no accounting for taste in the sharpness and saturation boost department." Meaning over-sharpenming, out of focus or both? and "pronounced halos on one of blown out spectral highlights of the flames that needs to be softened to match the others." thanks...more than one. Ed... even though a photo is exported from LR at 300ppi the printer will print at lower than that for different sized prints? There must be a chart somewhere that one can look up native print sizes for xxxxxpixels x xxxxpixels @ 300 ppi, so that one could choose the print size most ideally suited to a given image file, or at least not vary far from it. That would assume that the photo's qualities are good to begin with. or garbage in garbage out. A bad photo (for whatever cause) will be a bad photo even if printed ideally. Would it be better to export from LR at a certain expected end print size? As a test I exported that photo to 11x14" size and the file size as well as the dimensions in pixels were very close to the same size as the file posted above. It sure is easier to produce for a computer monitor, more forgiving. The whole printing process adds another layer, it seems, over which you can only attempt some control. Thanks again for the patient answers. This printing thing is a whole 'nother world.

Thanks, Bill. The idea of a print test run is sound. Being new to this process, the way I understand it, and this must be confirmed, is that the prints are sold first, then printed and delivered. IOW I never see the final product being delivered---again, I need to check that. I fully recognize that the weakest link in all of this could be my skill, or, it could be the online house's printing, and I could never know. The alternative is to do a "closed edition" making the prints myself and shipping to them. Obvious advantages and disadvantages for both schemes. I would think that this being a "major" house, their printing would meet the criteria, but I don't know that. They have standards for submission of a minimal pixel count. re sharpening in the computer...yes, I do that; this is not a representative sample of what I want in terms of sharpness, but represents dancing flambeaux in a night time Mardi Gras parade lit only by the flames and a street lamp half a block away. It was dark, but this was the "feel." Thanks for the advice

Thanks, Tim, appreciate it. I understand the overthinking part; my ignorance of the process makes everything seem equally important, so I can get lost in the details and not prioritize. Your response helped clarify. John

Apologizing in advance for this, but my head is about to explode. Semi-retired and as photography has been a hobby for lots of years, I thought I'd try my hand at selling some of my work. So, I am dealing with an online gallery, and as my images are in digital form, I will sell some of them as open edition--The house prints them for sale from my digital upload. My head is exploding over how pixel size and resolution relate to print size for fine art quality prints. I understand that pixel size for a digital image relates to it only digitally, and only serves as a "numerator" divided by resolution to give what that pixel number would translate to if printed ---"directly?" Is that the right term? in other words if a digital image is 3400x2600 at a resolution of 300dpi (out of LR6) then that image would print at its best detail at (3400/300)x(2600/300) or 11.33"x8.66", is that correct? If the above is correct--and I am confused enough to think it may not be, or I may be missing something very important--then, if the image was later exported from LR6 at a res of 72, then it could be printed, again at its best achievable detail, to (3400/72)x(2600/72) or 47"x36". However, the "quality" of the image would not be as good, though it would be much bigger. Is that correct? So, if the above is correct, there is a balance to achieve between size of finished print and detail in the print, correct? The attached file is 3422x2667. It was exported at 300 dpi--MAC Preview shows this res (though an online exif reader says 72). Two questions arise: If the 300dpi image were printed to 47x36 size of the 72dpi print (is that called a "native print" or wrong term?), would it, the 300dpi export, look better than the 72dpi version, having 300/72 or 4x better resolution? And could this attached image tolerate printing to 11x14 or 16x20 ish without appreciable loss of quality? Fully realizing large amounts of misunderstanding and ignorance may be on full display, but I've gotten to the point where the more I read the more my eyes glass over. Thanks (Please move to another forum if appropriate)

<p><img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/Travels-with-Lil-Red-Canes-to/i-w9qRTdf/0/XL/C2G_082016-319-XL.jpg" alt="" /><br> my other baby...Sony rx100ii</p>

<p># 3 d700 35 f/2 nikkor</p> <p><img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/Chene-Vert-09302016/i-ZwCx8qw/0/L/Stro09302016-103-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>#2, upstairs bedroom same setup<br> <img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/Chene-Vert-09302016/i-vLscJ8W/0/L/Stro09302016-167-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Wayne and Cheryl's house, Louisiana. Roux looks on. D700, 16-35 f4 nikkor<br> <img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/Chene-Vert-09302016/i-8zhQJJ4/0/L/Stro09302016-101-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="571" /></p>

<p>thanks for all the feedback. Yes, everything y'all are saying is true, and just as true is that the lines are very blurred in choosing between the two.<br> I gave him a long response, with no clear answer, but he came up with a solution to his situation, though not to the question asked. He said, "maybe I'll get both." That is a good choice because then he could get something with a larger sensor, and go frugal, but good, on a P&S, and have the advantages of both. He knows to use a tripod. I have a d700 and the sony rx100mk2. The d700 "takes better pictures" right out of the camera, but after post it's hard (impossible) to tell the difference. Which one I "like" more? Maybe the d700, but which one would suffice for more circumstances? The Sony. And I use my Note 4 cell phone a fair amount.<br> Again, thanks. As I suspected there is no clear answer, and if he wants to go with both, that is the best way to go. He then can learn from practice which to use when. I'll look at the d5300.</p>

<p>Sorry if this is the wrong forum to ask this, but couldn't find one more appropriate?? <br> A friend is asking for a recommendation for a camera.<br> A pro photog recommended to him both the Nikon D5200 and the Canon T5i. From what i see the Nikon is better regarded and I've told him so. However, I am questioning whether a dslr is better for his purposes than a good P&S. He has a tripod.<br> He is a collector of antiques and lives in a bucolic setting outside of Baton Rouge, La. His home is a restored plantation home and it houses the antiques. In addition he has extensive gardens with over 150 varieties of blooming plants. He is entering his retirement years and will begin to lecture nationally on his restoration projects as well as his gardens. He does not know, nor will he likely learn how to post process (I offered to do it for him). Portability and cost are both somewhat important, probably in equal measure. As I was talking to him I realized that the choice in this case was maybe not so clear of dslr vs P&S. He is going to shoot the antiques proper including detail close-ups, as well as interior room shots. He will also shoot the flowers as they bloom. PLuses and minuses for both formats, and I am not sure what is "better." Things like interchangeable lenses, viewfinder presence, cost, obsolescence are all in the gumbo of choice. It seems to me to be a philosophical and utilitarian question that may in the end have a very fuzzy answer?<br> I shoot with both a dslr and a P&S and I like both, same subjects, but different shooting environments. I use my cell phone also.<br> Could the answer be something as simple as which has the better/bigger sensor. For sake of discussion let's say his budget is $750-1000.<br> I appreciate any advice and thanks in advance</p>

<p>followup: Even though I got the scanner and the laptop to what I believe are optimal levels of performance--as good as I am going to get them- things are so slow that alternatives must be sought. I am going through a USB 1.0 port and that plays a role I'm sure. Even though I spent the better part of a day deleting old programs and updating XP to the point that I was "up to date," I am again, with each boot advised to update. There is no way to see exactly what needs to update. I find the Canon software to be difficult to use. I tried an old copy of VuePro32 and it wasn't much better. It was, to me, the same old Windows song, ie spending more time on Windows than on the job<br> So, as Jim, a couple of days ago advised, I rigged my d700 to do the copy of the 35mm negatives. I found an unused plastic slide mount and modified it to act as a negative holder that fit right in to the Nikon ES-1 slide copy adapter. My images are 10mb out of the camera vs 30ish from the scanner, they are in RAW, and they look better. Prints and 6x6 negs are a problem as my only means for duping at this point is the CanoScan/Dell combo...but that is a few thousand 35mm negs away, a problem for another day. Maybe I'll figure something out<br> The only minor issue was converting negative to positive in LightRoom, but that can be done, and I have a preset for it.<br> Thanks to all for the support and advice</p>

<p>addendum:<br> I tried some B&W film strips and filled the carrier. The film breaks appear correctly. So, the question is does the carrier need be filled completely to get proper separation?</p>

<p>OK, starting to get a little throbbing in the temples...<br> Got it all set up; seems to be working, EXCEPT,<br> I am using the film holder for 35mm color negatives. Something, software-the canon stuff, user setting error, hardware, film holder, something is causing the negatives to be broken into pieces. I am using a strip of 4, the first one's scanned image is more than the original, the second is half of the second and part of the third, etc. It just doesn't seem to know where the image breaks are. <br> Using the canoScan software, latest for XP. I've only done 2 prints so far, but they seem to scan properly.<br> JvW, the 9900f is not supported from Mountain Lion on. It just will not play</p> <p>Any help appreciated, and I am well beyond the hour I said I would give it.<br> PS Tried it without the film holder with the same unacceptable result</p>

<p>Again, more good advice. Thank you.<br> I have been cleaning, cleaning cleaning the laptop. I did a successful test drive with an external drive. I'll download the canon drivers and give her a whirl.</p>

<p>good advice all. Right, what do I have to lose. At this point having the Dell pretty bare bone and OS updated, I'll try the 9900f. if it works, fine. <br> Prof K, that was my experience when I did have it working(?) on the mac in earlier versions of OSx. </p> <p>I'll give it an hour, and if I am running for the Fioricet, I'll have my answer. Thanks all.</p>

<p>It's not the CanoScan 9000; the one I have is the CanoScan 9900F-an earlier model</p>

<p>decades of stuff and very old family photos (100 year old stuff)...I haven't even rounded them up yet, but it is a substantial number, likely well into the hundreds to a couple thousand? Plus negatives, including 2.25 sq maybe 2k of those???</p> <p>Jim, couple of reasons, have not considered the d700 route. To copy well, I would think some sort of copy setup would be required if not for the camera, then for the prints, that are different sizes, maybe for both the camera and the print. Likely something much more than a tripod. Then to set up some nice lighting would be another issue. I had an old XRay box that worked well for the slides, but for the prints there would be some jerry-rigged arrangement. Prob cheaper and better with a scanner to avoid hot spots and glare.<br> And Les, you make a hitting home point if the scan time is half on the newer scanners. That's the type of info I seek.<br> > Typically post work can take more with this level of scanners. Likely it may provide similar results in terms of quality of scans.<<br> post can take longer with the older scanners? Is that what you're saying, in order to produce similar quality to the newer scanners? If so, good point. I would not pp everything, but certainly quite a few, and that does take time.</p>

<p>No, I hope not self fulfilling, but I understand your point, and thanks. Put it another way. Has the technology for hassle free scanning advanced significantly since windows Xp and CanoScan 9900F to justify buying a new scanner? Obviously a personal and financial question, but has the tech part improved that much for the better? If it's pretty much the same or only marginally better, I am willing to chance the possible headaches, but if things have gotten much better, then the $230 outlay would pale over the time saved. </p>

<p>I am in the process of digitizing my family photos/slides/negatives. My setup is an early 2008 iMac, Mavericks, 4gb ram, solid state hard drive, multiple externals. I used a nikon slide copying adapter on a Nikon micro Nikkor on my d700. I am satisfied how that went.<br> Now for prints and negatives including some 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 s.<br> For this I want to use a flatbed scanner. I have a CanoScan 9900F and an old windows xp laptop (Dell Inspiron 4150). There is no, as far as I can tell, no software to link the canon scanner with my mac, neither from Canon nor VueScan...if incorrect please advise.<br> So, if I go with the scanner to windows laptop, I am assuming that the "quality limiting factor" will be the scanner's abilities, rather than anything in the laptop; again, correct me if I am wrong. If I go with the windows setup I would load the files onto an external drive, and pp on the Mac in Lightroom 5. <br> The alternative is spend $230 for perhaps an epson v600 or at least something that can do the job and is OSX compliant.<br> When I went to mac I couldn't then believe how "easy" they were. I fear that if I go with the "free" windows setup as described above I am asking for glacial performance, infuriating error messages, numerous crashes, restarts aplenty, and ultimately buying a new scanner for my mac. It would seem the prudent solution is to try out the windows setup and decide, but would you be satisfied with the performance of a 7-8 year old system? Right now I am cleaning and updating the windows computer and in windows fashion, it is taking hours to delete programs and update the system. </p>

<p>Mardi Gras 2015</p> <p><img src="http://jld2.smugmug.com/MardiGras/Mardi-Gras-day-20150217/i-G5mQGKF/0/L/MGD-124-L.jpg" alt="" width="744" height="600" /></p>

<p>I am late, but better late than never, right? Had a little party in the streets couple of days ago Way Down Yonder. All Nikon d700 w the 24-70 iso 800<br> <img src="http://jld2.smugmug.com/MardiGras/Mardi-Gras-day-20150217/i-ZVNMntC/0/L/MGD-145-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="591" /></p> <p><img src="http://jld2.smugmug.com/MardiGras/Mardi-Gras-day-20150217/i-2jSZxB9/0/L/MGD-280-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="533" /></p> <p><img src="http://jld2.smugmug.com/MardiGras/Mardi-Gras-day-20150217/i-T4VPWz6/0/L/leopards-102-L.jpg" alt="" width="768" height="600" /></p>