| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Rossie
|
 Posted -
11/01/2008
:
19:30
|
Because of the grim weather, I have been unable to experiment outside with my shiny new camera, so I have resorted to indoor efforts, using flash and focus................
Gill
Kalh mera oi filoi mou
|
|
| Replies |
| Author |
|
|
softsuvner
|
Posted - 12/02/2008 : 22:35
Tizer and Rossie
What I fear is, and there have been a few studies on this, is that very few shots taken by the younger generation on their mobile phones actually get printed out (hard copy). The older generation, especially with the interest in family history, are well up on the value of old images. But then we were brought up on iconic still images in books and newspapers. The younger generation with their short attention span, may well have no interest in such things until it is too late.
I could be wrong, I hope I am, but I don't feel that that future generations will have the choice and breadth of photos from the past that we have now.
I haven't forgotten the joy of discovering a whole set of family shots when an aunt died a few years ago.They included both sets of maternal grandparents, and I had never seen photos of them at all before.
As to Tizer's scanning question, this whole dpi thing seems a bit of a complication to me. You need to scan at a higher resolution than 72, otherwise you will not have the fine detail in your image. Of course the scanning guides don't envisage many people printing them out!
The problem comes in the huge size of the files that you create. This is where photo manipulation programmes come in handy. Another thing for experimentation I am afraid.
Any ideas/experience in the dpi thing anybody?
Malcolm
 |
softsuvner
|
Posted - 12/02/2008 : 22:37
For "grandparents" read "great-grandparents"!
Malcolm
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 13/02/2008 : 08:13
72 dpi is the maximum comuter screens can resove and so it's essential for email images and the site. Basically the higher res the scan the more information in the image. I can scan an image at 24,000dpi and the resulting file is enormous. Mrs Nikon turns out a 72dpi file but it's 27mb so all the info is there. With modern large hard drives and fast computers large files are no problem. So what I do is save to HD at a high enough res to give good quality and use lower res for mails and site etc. Easily changed in any imaging programme but of course you do lose the quality.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Big Kev
|
Posted - 13/02/2008 : 09:51
quote:
Stanley wrote:
72 dpi is the maximum comuter screens can resove and so it's essential for email images and the site. Basically the higher res the scan the more information in the image. I can scan an image at 24,000dpi and the resulting file is enormous. Mrs Nikon turns out a 72dpi file but it's 27mb so all the info is there. With modern large hard drives and fast computers large files are no problem. So what I do is save to HD at a high enough res to give good quality and use lower res for mails and site etc. Easily changed in any imaging programme but of course you do lose the quality.
I beg to differ but isn't monitor output measured in ppi (pixels per inch)
I've pulled this from tinternet
"Someone (presumably Microsoft) decided that because the dots in screen dpi are pixels on the screen then the inches should be inches on the screen, but they can't be physical inches because the physical distance occupied by a number of pixels changes when the video resolution is changed, or the monitor size is changed, and physical inches don't change their size - unless you are traveling near the speed of light. The way round this was to define inches on screen as "logical inches" and it's a concept that has led to widespread confusion. A logical inch is not the same as a physical inch, and this can be a difficult concept to grasp. A physical inch doesn't change its size - a logical inch does. If the screen is set, via the Control Panel, at 96 dpi, then the distance occupied by 96 pixels is one logical inch. If the screen is set at 150 dpi then the distance occupied by 150 pixels is one logical inch. If you change your video resolution, or change to a different size monitor, the logical inch is still one logical inch even though the physical distance occupied by a logical inch changes. Logical inches are elastic - physical inches aren't."
For posting on OGFB I, personally, set the image resolution to 150ppi and adjust the image size to approx 800 pixels wide (this, as a rough guide keeps the filesize to less than 1MB). This size image also fits nicely on the page.....
Big Kev
It doesn't matter who you vote for, you always end up with the government. |
Rossie
|
Posted - 13/02/2008 : 17:48
This is the bridge at Whitehough, Barley, taken today at 12.30 ish - I wrongly labelled it as Narrowgates. I also took the same view in colour but much prefer this black & white one.
Gill
Kalh mera oi filoi mou
|
Big Kev
|
Posted - 13/02/2008 : 18:17
What a great pic. It could have been taken anytime in the last 100 years, no cars, no satellite dishes....
Big Kev
It doesn't matter who you vote for, you always end up with the government. |
softsuvner
|
Posted - 13/02/2008 : 20:33
Rossie
No holding you now, I envy you having the chance to make the most of this break in the weather.....that's what photograp[hy is all about, grabbing the opportunity. if only the digital camera had been available 40 years ago!
Tizer
I hope that you are getting some benefit from all this advice. Wiped the software for my old flatbed, but, have now remembered that I used to scan slides at a figure of 360 to 400 (dpi?).
I notice your latest picture is a very small file, much less than the max recomended for OGFB, (in the region of 100kb). Kev has given you his normal settings which are in the same region that I use.
When I have finished playing with a scan, I use the "Scan to Web" on Elements and set the width control to about 700 pixs wide, depth adjusts itself to that. I then use the quality slider to set the image size to about 100kb, that's all there is to it..
Keep experimenting!
Malcolm
|
Tizer
|
Posted - 13/02/2008 : 20:46
Rossie, Great picture - it makes me want to paddle. More please!
Malcolm, Yes all the advice is useful - I need to learn more about graphics. But the photo of the Old George (if that's the one you mean) was copied straight from the pub's web site and placed on OGFB.
My main concern is how to get my old 35mm slides converted into digital photos. For my own use viewing on my PC's screen - not necessarily for OGFB although some will end up there. I'm quite used to scaling JPG images to put them in email or on the web. My real problem is how to get all that detail from the old slides so that i can see it on screen as a full-screen size photo.
As an experiment I have just scanned one of the slides at several combinations of resolution (dpi) and dimensions (cm) and the next step will be to examine them to get a better idea of how all this works. I normally use a Linux PC with a Canon LIDE 25 scanner but it doesn't have a transparency adapter. So I'm back on the old Win98 PC using the HP Scanjet 5370 which does have an adapter. I'm suing the HP "Precision Pro" software for scanning. When I scan it offers me the opportunity to set a resolution from 72 to 2400 dpi and to set the output dimensions in cm or pixels. This throws me because I don't know which I should be using to get the detail from the slide onto the JPG. Both higher res and higher size in cm seem to give extra detail in the JPG.
It doesn't seem to have anything about the Unmask Sharpen although there is some kind of sharpen tool which I haven't tried yet.
|
Rossie
|
Posted - 13/02/2008 : 20:57
Here I go again.............
Pendle from Heys Lane, Barley
and.............
Heys Lane looking in the opposite direction towards Roughlee. Both taken today around noon.
Gill
Edited by - Rossie on 13/02/2008 9:03:09 PM
Kalh mera oi filoi mou
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 14/02/2008 : 06:44
BK, I've learned something there but isn't it true that 72ppi is the limit on screens?
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
softsuvner
|
Posted - 14/02/2008 : 08:27
Tizer
You won't get the detail that you seek unless you apply some degree of sharpening, preferably at the post-scan stage.
Earlier photo software used tools such as "sharpen" and "more sharp". These are O.K. but can be a bit all or nothing.The better ones used "unsharp mask" , which is now more common. Unsharp Mask is a hangover term from the old film technology. When used in digital software it allows you to fine tune sharpness in terms of pixels. Usually gives you three options with sliders, or putting in numerical values.
Good compromise on latter is: Amount: 200%
Radius: 1.5
Threshold: 0
This will mean nothing unless you find the numerical Unsharp mask but will save time if you do!
Rossie
Won't be long before the powers that be are asking for a new "local landscape" thread! Mind you that might not be a bad thing, could bring in the watercolourists/painters as well.
Malcolm
|
Another
Traycle Mine Overseer
6250 Posts
|
|
Posted - 14/02/2008 : 09:14
Now I like black and white photographs but I don't think everything suits to be monochrome.
The pics that Findus has submitted in b&w have all been great and to my mind suited to the "special" qualities of light and dark that they bring. I especially like the light /shade in the pics of Whiteghough.
The one exception to this is the distance shot of Pendle Hill. Please don't take this the wrong way but everything in the foreground looks fine but the hill does not lend itself to mono. Perhaps its my painters(artists) eye but the hill is too clear and too distinctive for being in the distance. I'm not explaining myself very well but does anyone see what I mean ? Nolic (with the plank in his eye)
" I'm a self made man who worships his creator"  |
Big Kev
|
Posted - 14/02/2008 : 09:24
quote:
Stanley wrote:
BK, I've learned something there but isn't it true that 72ppi is the limit on screens?
It's dependant on the output resolution of your monitor. The 72dpi thing is more to do with font sizes (points) and screen printing (rather than monitor screen).
1pt = 1/72 inch. This means:
At 72 pixels per inch, 1pt equals 1 pixel.
At 96 pixels per inch, 1pt equals 1.333 pixels.
So a font specified at 12pt will display as 12 pixels if the resolution is 72ppi, and as 16 pixels if the resolution is 96ppi
I'm sure the graphic designers on here will be able to explain it better if I'm not making sense.......
Cheers
Big Kev
It doesn't matter who you vote for, you always end up with the government. |
Rossie
|
Posted - 14/02/2008 : 09:55
Nolic, I agree with you - I took all 3 of the above shots in colour also (along with about 30 others!!!!). The Whitehough one is definitely better in B&W, and I rather like the dry stone wall. Pendle, I never find easy to photograph, despite living on its doorstep and having lots of opportunities in all weather conditions. Photos seem to me to reduce its size. Perhaps the best time to snap it from over here is late evening on a sunny day, when the setting sun picks out the gullies and gives it some depth. A light dusting of snow can have the same effect. It can look very flat and uninteresting in a photograph so I was keen to try black and white for a change, but it does nothing to enhance the beauty of Old Pendle.
My favourite b & w of those I took yesterday is one I have not put up here as perhaps you can have too much of a good thing  and perhaps it is now time I tried something different. 
Thanks for all the feedback.
Gill
Kalh mera oi filoi mou
|
Tizer
|
Posted - 14/02/2008 : 09:59
Nolic, I agree with you about the Pendle shot - my feeling is that the hill is just a massive grey area in B&W. Whereas the second shot has lots of texture, suited to B&W. But I'm no expert on photos, and even less on art!
This discussion about pixels, dpi, ppi is great because it's always been smoke and mirrors to me.
|
Some photos
