orourke

<p>Olli,<br>

Both files seem to display the same pixel count (?) of about 1800 at the widest despite the difference in MB. Here are two severe crops of the lower left hand corner of an image, one from the tiff download and the other after the conversion to jpg., which I batch converted in Fastone. After the crop I resized both of them back up to 700. There doesn't seem to be a discernable difference between the two at this magnification.</p>

<p>William,<br>

They aren't pros but they sure have been willing to do their best. They even thanked me at length for bringing this to their attention and allowing them to produce better images. They were actually quite excited about it.<br>

John,<br>

That's what we're thinking, John. The question now is why the Tiff files are relatively small, and if I can indulge them to try and figure out if we can pump up the resolultion further. How cool would that be? Locally developed 35mm and hi res scans to disc for under 10 bucks! Like William said, I think contacting Fuji is the next logical step, seeing I have the store's cooperation.</p>

<p>William,<br />My understanding of what transpired is that it is an independent, two step process. Scanning the negatives and then transferring that information to a disc. When disc one was inserted it came back jpg. When the premium disc was inserted it came back tiff. They are assuming the reason for the difference is the quality of the disc. In fact, when they first came up with that idea I questioned it, stating I didn't see how disc quality would have any bearing on the scan process. The reason we came to the conclusion that it must be the disc quality was because they couldn't find any settings to change, either in resolution or format, and were debating whether or not to call Fuji when they popped in a premium disc, just for the heck of it.<br />I can go back this week and bring a strip of negatives to double check our assupmtion, but I have a feeling we'll be back at square one.<br />An interesting aside. A few months ago I brought a bunch of negatives to the same store. They told me they could only get, or were only allowed to put about 24 frames on a disc. I said fine. When I went back I found out that the clerk had put about 130 frames on the disc to save me money, and for convenience, which I appreciated. I just checked those files and they are not any more compressed than the jpg discs with 24 images. In other words, the standard disc is capable of holding alot more information than they originally stated. At least 5 times as much in this example. Given that, why would the machine feel the need to convert to tiff for 24 images if the difference in information volume is only double, which seemed to be the factor of this last batch.<br />I'm confused now.</p>

<p>EDIT: I should underline that the employees did not, and do not know how to scan the negatives to tiff files short of simply inserting a premium disc.<br>

Maybe the answer is for me to get the model number of the machine and calling Fuji customer support for guidance.</p>

<p>David,<br>

I'm in Michigan. The store is a Walgreens in mid Michigan. The machuine was a Fuji. In fact they were discussing whether or not to call Fuji to find out how to change the settings when we stumbled across the premium disc solution. I can run by there tomorrow and grab the model number if that helps. Their hypothesis was that the machine reads the non premium disc as not having enough space for the tiff, so it defaults to jpeg. We thought the problem was in the scan process of the negatives, but as it turned out, that was not the case. I watched as they produced 2 discs from the same information the machine had. The premium disc ended up tiff without changing scan settings. I know this because I was physically holding the negatives in an envelope at the time.</p>

<p>Michael,<br>

I don't know. I'm new at this scanning stuff so I really don't have a rosetta stone reference. I'd be curious to see if I brought them an even better cd if the file would be even larger.</p>

<p>Same image....... Tiff 6.3 MB / JPG 3.3 MB.</p>

<p>Sorry :( voila. Sometimes I can be lyxdesic.</p>

<p>This may or may not be the forum for this, I'll let a moderator decide. I thought it might be of broader interest to place it here as opposed to a film or digital darkroom thread. As some of you know, I've been scanning some old negatives. In each case, with the exception of some black and white stuff, I have taken them to a local national drug store chain. Initially I had asked if they could do high resolution scans, to which they replied no. So I resigned myself to accept the jpegs they gave me, content with using them to learn the ropes of post work via some free software. I had about a dozen cds made so far.<br />The last cd, prior to this week, accidentally came back as a tiff file and I posted a question here on pnet as to how to convert it to jpeg. The first indication of something being amiss was the length of time it took to download, followed by an inabilty to open the file in some programs. With the help of some here I was able to convert the files and live happily ever after.<br />I started playing around with the accidental tiff files and noticed a dramatic difference in the resolution. I thought that in the future I may request the scans be done to produce tiff instead of jpeg since it seemed to give me more options in post.<br />This week I waltzed up to the national drugstore chain photo counter with some more 35mm negatives in hand and explained to the clerk about the recent accidental production of a tiff cd during my last visit. I asked if it was possible to make the same accident happen with these negatives. She said she'd "see what we can do" and I should come back about 3 so they had time to work with it.<br />At 4 o'clock I returned to pick up the cd only to find they had, as they normally had done, given me jpegs. Fortunately, two other employees in the photo department took an interest in my case when they overheard me say to the girl, "I wonder what they did different last time". They asked if I could stick around and offered they'd try to get to the bottom of it.<br />The next half hour they spent searching through my order history, playing with adustments on the machine, debating whether if I really had gotten tiff files from them or if I was just imaginging it.<br />Finally one of them suggested they use a "premium cd" to see if there was a difference.<br />VIOLA !<br />Magically the negatives were converted to tiff files right there before our eyes. Apparently the machine automatically switches to tiff with the better cd!<br />None of the employees at the store were aware they could offer customers higher resolution scans simply by using a premium cd. Neither did I.<br />I don't understand the process that took place for this to happen, I can only say that it did. I thought some here may be interested in this little quirk if they are, as I am, scanning old negatives and downloading them to their computer. <br />The employees told me that when I bring in film in the future, to ask that it be put on a premium cd. Hope that is helpful to some here. It's the least I can do to thank you for helping me.<br />Bill</p>

<p>My Blue Moon for this week's after dark theme. (actually, it's really the sun but if you don't tell, I won't)</p><div></div>

<p> As a kid my father, who was not a photographer, showed me the basics of how to get what I wanted in the viewfinder. As I recall, defining the image borders in his waist level viewfinder was a bit of a challenge in those days. Then, a series of instamatics and polaroids reinforced the need for me, and many others, to compose within the limits of the camera. I poured over photography magazines drooling at some of the images and was convinced that all I needed was a better camera. So I bought one. My first 35, a Nikkormat Ft2. At the time I was living in the rolling hills of Pennsylvania which presented a tremendous opportunity for me to record stunning panoramas. I didn't get many and those I did are probably lost forever. Speaking with 'photographers' I was advised that I should feel lucky to get a keeper out of a roll of 36, and for years, on and off, I'd burn through film pitching images that weren't just right. Lately, going through some old negatives, scanning them, and playing around with cropping tools available today, I'm finding that some of those rolls of 36 are yielding much more that one shot. That's both exciting and educational. For one, discovering images within an old image is like finding a ten dollar bill in the pocket of a pair of jeans that just came out of the dryer. But I think the most profound discovery is that, through cropping, I am re-evaluating my approach to composition. What should I keep? What should I cut? In short, I think working with these old images to see what works and what doesn't will eventually do more to make my photographs better from their inception than anything else. I'll buy a digital camera soon and make the step from my film 35s, the way I did stepping up from the instamatic days. The difference is today I'll realize good photos have more to do with my approach and vision of a scene than expecting a new camera to do the heavy lifting for me.</p>

<p>Working on old negs this week. This is a shot taken with my old Nikkormat FT2 and a 50mm f2 lens during the late 70s in California. Originally shot in color, I've been playing around with b&w conversions.</p><div></div>

<p>I did fill out the survey,and if that was the genesis of this kind act it doesn't diminish my gratitude. Thanks again to whomever this came from. I never win anything! People ask me what teams I like just so they can pick the opposite! Maybe my luck is changing?</p>

<p>I realize there is already an active, current thread about saying "Thank you" on photo.net. In fact, I posted in it. However, I think, given what I just discovered, I need to seperate this "thank you" from that thread and it's discussion in order to underline my deepest thanks to whomever was responsible for the very generous gift of a free subscription.</p>

<p>I don't know who, why, or how, but when I just signed in I noticed I am now 'subscribed' through January of 2013. I've checked messages and e-mails, and no-one seems to be taking credit for this unselfish gesture. I'm speechless. I really don't know what else to say other than "Thank you,... very, very much".<br>

Sincerely,<br>

Bill ORourke</p>

<p>Thank you for all your responses, it's been an interesting read. It seems the answer isn't as black and white as I may have expected. With reasons that include displayed viewfinder percentage, pixels, shooting speed, film types, formats, and others being considered before personal artistic composition enters the equation, I feel less like I am somehow cheating than I did yesterday. I guess it's safe to say that a very large percentage of final images on display here are cropped to some extent.</p>

<p>Good, bad or indifferent, if someone leaves a comment about one of my photos I hit the helpful comment button. I do this because I believe all input is worthwhile, especially given the scarcity of comments. I have far more ratings than comments and would like a way to thank people for taking the time to rate a photo, but I'm unaware of an avenue to do that. Clearly, when a dialogue is underway (in a thread) it is much easier to express gratitude for helpful suggestions or answers to questions. I haven't been around here long enough to become jaded,a nd with my limited knowledge base I find myself thanking more people than the reciprocal, but I try to help, when I can. I think overall this is one of most civil sites I've encountered on the net. That quality and the obvious quality of the technical advice/dialogue are what keep me coming back.<br>

FWIW</p>

<p>Scott,<br>

Not having shot alot of slide film, or been around many who have, I can only suggest that, at least for me, slide film represented more of a finished product. It's been years, but I can remember taking extra time composing with the assumption that whatever I shot would be slide mounted as is and popped into a projector. I know that isn't the case for pros or advanced amateurs, it just was for me. I might add that almost all of the slide film I shot I previewed through one of those cheap hand held viewers with 2 C batteries and a scratched up screen, which didn't lend itself well to visualizing a crop.</p>

<p>Well, I for one could certainly use a free subscription. I'm poor. I'm so broke I can't pay attention. In fact, it is probably because I haven't been paying attention that I am having difficulty understanding what is being asked for here. Could someone please clarify so that I may have a reasonble chance at putting PN on the table? The children are photographically and culturally starved.</p>

<p>Thank you for your input Fred and Louis.<br>

Yes Louis, I suppose shooting slide film gives one a more regimented approach to composition. I have rarely shot slide, maybe 20 rolls in my lifetime, so it's an easier habit for me to break.<br>

Thanks again.</p>

<p>JDM,<br>

After reading your insert it would appear I'm marching in the opposite direction. I suppose as we get older the logical path would be to follow Steiglitz. Not being a master of lighting I'm becoming more prone to focus (work) more on that aspect of an image than to relagate myself to getting the composition right the first time. After all, without the proper exposure, good composition is irrelevant.<br>

Steve,<br>

I have taken presentable images cropped with nothing more than the viewfinder, as we all have. I have been the proverbial blind squirrel in that regard, lucky at times. But I agree with you and, as I stated, I am gravitating toward a looser style of capturing an image than what I have done over the years. Hopefully, it will produce more photographic inventory from which to extract more succint images. Thank you, by the way, for your kind synopsis of my example above. Very much. It's appreciated.</p>

<p>Thanks for the response, John. The original image above was exposed back in the mid 70's. A couple of years later, in a photo class, I printed it in b&w as originally composed. I even framed it. Over the years I've always looked at the photo wondering how it would look if I had focused more on the boat and dock rather than the peripheral contents, which to me grew more and more distracting. I often find myself taking time to compose, maybe too much, to try and get the framing right the first time. This shot was with film. It seems with the advent of digital and the increase in resolution that brings with it, the original composition is less important than it was. Certainly basics would still apply but I'm beginning to think about changing my approach to capturing the moment, focusing more on exposure and depth of field over framing with limiting image borders.</p>

<p>Finally, the composition I settled on, giving the image an entirely different flavor.</p><div></div>

<p>First crop and b&w conversion.</p><div></div>

<p>No, it's not a typo and my question isn't agricultural in nature. I was simply wondering how many of you frame or compose your images with eventual cropping in mind. Do you allow yourselves an addition buffer zone to either reframe in post, or crop edit to highlight individual subjects within the original composition. Lately I've been experimenting with old negatives, taking original shots and cropping them to change the focus or feel. Here's an example.</p><div></div>

<p>Well that was special. You had me going for a moment. There was no broken page icon anywhere within 100 feet of the address bar. What I eventually did was go into the 'page' drop down menu and clicked into 'compatability view settings'. Apparently when I bought this netbook I set it up for the compatibility view to be always on. It appears that when it is in 'always on' mode the icon in the bar is absent. When I turned it off the icon on top showed up, and, that solved the image display problem to boot. Also, it gives me ability to 'toggle'.A cursory tour around several websites I frequent didn't seem to show any ill effects for the change, so I'm content with leaving it off. At least now I know where to go if similar issues pop up in the future. Thank you Matt, you've helped alot!</p>

<p>Wow, that was fast, Matt. At least I know it's not just me, thanks. I'm using IE also but I've no idea how to toggle the browser's backward compatibility. Simple? Is this an issue you'd recommend just sitting on for a bit to see if it shakes out, or should I look for a permanent solution?</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

Today I am seeing an odd phenomenon occuring. All of the pages, porfolios, and forums seem to be displaying correctly EXCEPT when I click on an image for individual scrutiny. The image then shifts all the way over to the right. The title of the image stays in it's proper orientation in the middle of the screen but the picture is out of place. Is this a site issue? Me? Anyone else seeing this or ever have this problem?<br>

Thanks</p>

<div></div>