Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 12 topics

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: scan dpi for photos
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fe5edae91010d2ad?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 7:35 am
From: "T. Parker"

On Apr 4, 10:12 pm, "HEMI-Powered" <n...@none.sn> wrote:
> T. Parker added these comments in the current discussion du jour
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> You haven't mentioned noise removal yet, but if you've tried
> >> scanning books, you undoubtedly are now familiar with the fact
> >> that the half- tone dots used by printing houses results in a
> >> geometrically regular pattern in the digital image that looks
> >> like noise. Scanners have noise reduction schemes which vary in
> >> their capability, but the BEST thing you can do is to over scan
> >> by attemping to use about 3X the dpi you think you need and
> >> resizeing downward in your favorite graphics app. What noise
> >> remains can be removed at that time.
>
> > Yes. I just tried scanning at 100 dpi a family picture and
> > part of a book image. The book image shows
> > some kind of geometrical patterns. But the
> > original book doesn't have the patterns, how
> > come scanning it at 100 dpi produce the patterns
> > that I can't find in a normal camera picture? If it's noise,
> > how can noise be amplified in the 100 dpi
> > image?! If half tone dots. How come it only
> > shows in the scanned image and not the
> > original? Any clues? I know the solution is
> > scanning at higher dpi but I just want to
> > know the theoretical principle behind it.
> > Thanks dude.
>
> Great, you're learning fast!
>
> Briefly, prints made from film negs or slides used to use the same
> silver hallide chemicals to produce the print image as the film
> used to produce the neg. These days, it is done digitally. But, if
> the print is from silver negs and prints, they you WILL see an
> IRREGULAR pattern of "noise" in your scan depending on how large
> the silver crystals are. If you're a film photographer, the term
> for this is "grain".
>
> OTOH, pretty much all books and the like are printed with a rather
> old process called "half-toning." Think back to early B & W photos
> in newspapers. You know that these are comprised of gillions of
> little black dots on the paper and are NOT continuous tone like a
> film print. The dots are spaced to trick the human eye into
> THINKING it is looking at a gray scale but you are really looked at
> just black dots or white paper. That's where the "half" comes from,
> half black, half white.
>
> Half-toning lays downs dots at an angle for efficiency in the
> printing room and to better trick the eye into believing it is a
> continous tone photo. A common angle is 45 degrees. Hopefully you
> can see that the SIZE of the dots and the distance between the
> angular "rows" of dots is the main determining factor for quality.
> Please see one of my other replies to you for an example of how
> this is perceived.
>
> Color printing is almost the same, except that now the printing
> presses lay down 3 colors of dots. Unlike computer monitors which
> use the RGB color model, printers almost always use the CMY (cyan,
> magenta, yellow) model so a conversion is required. Early color
> printing formed black by combining all 3 ink colors and the
> lightness or darkness of various parts of the print depending on
> how much ink was sprayed on the paper. These days, though, more
> colors of ink are used as variants to the basic CMY model plus
> black to control light/dark and contrast.
>
> But, whether it be a B & W or a color photo print in a book, there
> WILL be for real dots on the page which your scanner picks up and
> turns them into what most people call "noise" because these digital
> dots tend to make the digital image look like it was painted on
> sand or has a screen door screen over it. But, if you look closely,
> the pattern is NOT random as it is with real noise, it tends to be
> geometrically regular and you can usually see the angle of the
> half-toning process.
>
> Your scanner will be able to use various techniquues to minimize
> this "noise", a process usually called "descreening." If your
> scanner can control the amount of noise reduction, don't overdo it
> because it will destroy the fine detail in the scan. Instead, use
> PhotoShop or other quality editor to remove the rest of the
> "noise."
>
> Please be aware, though, that totally getting rid of the noise and
> preserving the fine detail and sharpness in the image are mutually
> exclusive, so your results are some sort of compromise for which
> you must make a judgement. However, you can simulate some of the
> lost detail and sharpness using a variety of sharpening techniques
> in your post-processing.
>
> One more time, because this is so important: a half-dozen years
> ago, a friend put me on the the BIGGEST single thing to do to
> improve my scans, which is to overscan by 3x the dpi you think you
> need. Once I started doing that and resampling down before I
> attempted any image fixing such as noise reduction, my quality went
> way up. And, over the same time period, noise reduction algorithms
> in software became better as well.
>
> So, unless your goal in all of this is to simply figure out what
> your book publishers are using to scan and print their photos,
> don't get all hung up on what PhotoShop reports as the dpi. Worry
> ONLY about how the get the best possible quality image at a decent
> file size.
>
> --
> Jerry, aka HP
>
> "If you are out of work and hungry, eat an environmentalist" -
> Florida billboard- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks for your incredible details. I think you
must write a book about scanners or write
articles about them in magazines :)

After many hours of testing and trying different
images and software and printing them (that
is I bought a HP 910 Deskjet just to test
your theories). Well. I kinda got it already
and know what kind of quality of scan
google put into the books especially
the free ones allowed by publishers. And my
sole purpose of knowing it all was to decide
whether to buy a used book that costs $450
in the second hand market. After many
analysis. I decided not to get it because the
over 30+ x-ray pictures in the book is of
sufficient quality to be readable enough.
Again this is the book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=zb-3YzIn4ZcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Biologically+Closed+Electric+Circuits&ei=Z27XSb_MOobikwS62bXqAg#PPA176,M1

I live in the East. We know there is a extra
circulatory system that Western Medicine
simply ignore. And we can manipulate
the biochemistry of the body by manipulating
the extra circulatory system made of subtle
currents of Yin and Yang.

What has this got to do with image processing.
Nothing.

Thanks for all the help. Many useful adequate
Image related knowledge gained and
acquired in the last few days to guide the way.

Parker

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 8:49 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

T. Parker added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...

> Thanks for your incredible details. I think you
> must write a book about scanners or write
> articles about them in magazines :)

You're most welcome, Parker, glad you've found this treatise useful
to you. I appreciate the complement and suggestion to write a book,
but I truly lack the theoretical and technical information to do a
proper job of it. As I've said, I am a consumate pragmatist and
less interested in what books, web sites, and "experts" have to say
and more interested in what I see see with my own two eyes. Please
understand that this is NOT to say that I don't read nor do
research, I most certainly do. And, like you, when I am vexed by a
problem I can't solve or need a nudge in the right direction on a
buying decision, I will post here and other places.

> After many hours of testing and trying different
> images and software and printing them (that
> is I bought a HP 910 Deskjet just to test
> your theories). Well. I kinda got it already
> and know what kind of quality of scan
> google put into the books especially
> the free ones allowed by publishers. And my
> sole purpose of knowing it all was to decide
> whether to buy a used book that costs $450
> in the second hand market. After many
> analysis. I decided not to get it because the
> over 30+ x-ray pictures in the book is of
> sufficient quality to be readable enough.
> Again this is the book:

OK, I see. I have no clue what makes a used book worth $450 but I'm
guessing it is old and rare and you have well justified concerns
about whether you can capture decent scans of the photos in the
book.

> http://books.google.com/books?id=zb-3YzIn4ZcC&printsec=frontcover
> &dq=Biologically+Closed+Electric+Circuits&ei=Z27XSb_MOobikwS62bXq
> Ag#PPA176,M1
>
> I live in the East. We know there is a extra
> circulatory system that Western Medicine
> simply ignore. And we can manipulate
> the biochemistry of the body by manipulating
> the extra circulatory system made of subtle
> currents of Yin and Yang.
>
> What has this got to do with image processing.
> Nothing.

I took a quick look at the web site you provided, thanks. Without
more information, it's tough to comment intelligently on image
quality that (if I understand it correctly at all!) starts with
scans in some/many cases and ends up at least some of the time on a
web site. As you know, web sites tends to use minimal image sizes
to conserve server space and make access as fast as possible. I
have been to car photo web sites though, for example, that show you
a thumbnail picture, and give you a couple of choices for
downloading larger images. Occasionally, obtaining nice large
images requires one to register with the web site and/or pay a fee.
Whether that makes sense is up to the individual.

This DOES have something to do with image processing, though,
because you have a specific problem you're trying to solve. And,
although it sounds like you have decided not to buy this particular
book, the basic principles of what you and I have been discussing
will apply to the next book you buy.

To sum up, I'll take on faith that your HP scanner is up to the
task. Modern scanners generaly do quite well except maybe for the
really bargain basement kind. So, I'd say that when you're
investigating, you MAY want to ask the seller to give you some
insights as to the kind of paper the photos, X-rays, whatever are
printed on to make a decent judgment as to whether the price is
worth it or not.

Let me give you an entirely different way to look at this with a
somewhat obtuse example:

When I was still a teenager circa 1962-63 - yeah, I'm as old as
dirt! <grin> - I bought a book called ""Chrysler Performance
Handbook" by the editors of Hot Rod Magazine. I still have the book
today but it's pretty beat up. There's a truly beautiful photo of a
1963 426 Short Ram Max Wedge drag race engine is color on the
cover, but the rest of the book is printed on paper even worse than
newspapers use. As you might imagine, on a book this old and so
well handled by me so many times, the cover is wrinkled so scanning
was a time-consuming chore.

But, what was REALLY a challenge was getting anything at all decent
from the B & W photos in the text of the book! Imagine if you can
dots in the photos so coarse that I can see them with my naked eye,
and you can gain an appreciation of how much work it was to get
even marginally good scanning results. But, I was well motivated
since this book has been out of print for 45 years. I did an
extensive Google search to see if I could buy a copy in better
shape but they STARTED at $250 and likely were as bad as mine.
Plus, they'd have the same crap photos, right?

Now that I have a modicum of understanding of what you're trying to
accomplish, I can appreciate the struggle you're going through.
Using my obtuse example above to that $450 book you decided to pass
on, IF the photos are valuable enough to you to not only justify
the price but also a likely LONG time scanning and cleaning up the
photos, they go for it.

I'll drop two more examples: I've still got the brochure from the
1975 Plymouth Gran Fury I once owned. Unlike today's brochures, it
is printed like crap. And, I have a color large magazine ad of a
1962 Chrysler 300 hardtop like my father once owned, again printed
like crap plus this ad cost be half a C-note. Why do I tell you
this? Because these two sets of photos have special meaning to mean
and I'm willing to pony up the effort. Likewise, a last example. My
father was a WWII Marine who fought at Saipan, Tinian, and Iwo
Jima. I've got a number of Iwo books and an entire snapshop album
of his Marine experiences that my mother kept during the war. To
say that these photos are bad is an understatement! Yet, they have
so much sentimental value to me that I will spend whatever it takes
to get decent scans.

What all this blather has to do with you is that if you have a good
scanner, you have a good image processor in PS, and you have
special interests, go for it. Use the hints/info I've given you and
that of others to make a judgement on cost vs benefit but I think
that you'll be pleasantly surprised by the results you obtain once
you gain a little experience. And Parker, you won't need a 10 mega
pixel image to be satisfied.

> Thanks for all the help. Many useful adequate
> Image related knowledge gained and
> acquired in the last few days to guide the way.
>
Good luck and have a great weekend. I have to ask. Your name is
similar to T. Boone Pickens' name. Did you ever go the nickname of
"T. Parker?"

--
Jerry, aka HP

"If you are out of work and hungry, eat an environmentalist" -
Florida billboard

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photos about End of Lent
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/dbe1a2ab8a69a70c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 7:41 am
From: "WW"

"Miguel" <responderalgrupo@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:73o3moFvr6gfU2@mid.individual.net...
> Hello, these are the photos of the end of the ceremonies of the Friday.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3410200363/
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3410200367/
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3410222817/
>
> Always It is interesting your comments.
>
> --
> Miguel M. Yalán
> http://mmyv.com
What country?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 9:23 am
From: "Miguel"

"WW" <ccco@nospambresnan.net> escribió en el mensaje
news:fb-dnU_2WZsL7ErUnZ2dnUVZ_gWWnZ2d@bresnan.com...
>
> "Miguel" <responderalgrupo@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:73o3moFvr6gfU2@mid.individual.net...
>> Hello, these are the photos of the end of the ceremonies of the Friday.
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3410200363/
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3410200367/
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3410222817/
>>
>> Always It is interesting your comments.
>>
>> --
>> Miguel M. Yalán
>> http://mmyv.com
> What country?

Perú.

--
Miguel M. Yalán
http://mmyv.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Wolf, Ritz circling drain?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3463d680a8ced1fe?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 6:58 am
From: "dwight"

"Paul Bartram" <paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au> wrote in message
news:49d70624$0$74025$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
>
> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote
>
>> IMHO - no big loss. The local Inkley's (a Ritz store) was downright surly
>> when I went in some time ago to look at a camera.
>
> If nothing else, this current mess is going to clean out the less
> efficient businesses in many fields of commerce. It is when places that
> put profit over customer service will 'get theirs'. There are several here
> in Queensland I won't be crying over if the 'for lease' sign goes up.
>
> Paul

This is what so many forget, and what my old boss used to be so fond of
pointing out.

The company can advertise, market, produce, stock, ship, and do all other
functions flawlessly. But the customer only knows the individual with whom
they are dealing at any one given moment. If that salesperson is having a
bad day, it forever ruins the company's image in that consumer's mind.

When I was in sales, whether phone or face-to-face, my mantra was that the
person I was talking to was my very best friend. At that moment. It's
amazing what customers will forgive when you use that approach.

:()

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 7:48 am
From: Allen

dwight wrote:
>
> "Nervous Nick" <nervous.nick@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:03524f8c-579a-4491-aaaa-d76997ae5ee3@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>> I dunno whether this is of interest to anyone here, and apologize if
>> it has already been mentioned, but fwiw, an article from a local
>> publication:
>>
>> http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=283997
>>
>> Ritz, Wolf begin liquidation sales
>
> I must admit that I haven't thrown much money in their direction, but
> they did have their uses. I'm sad to see my local Ritz Camera on the
> list of closures. Sometimes, I just gotta have something and I gotta
> have it now.
>
> dwight
>
>
At least two of their Wolf stores in Austin make outstanding 4x6
prints--higher price than Costco etc, but also higher quality, with
operators constantly watching the output and not afraid to reprint. I
will really miss that service. As far as merchandise, though--I've not
bought anything except a few frames and albums.
Allen

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 12:22 pm
From: "Stormin Mormon"

Oh, customer service is so, so essential. One of my
wholesale parts houses, the guy at the counter acts like he
doesn't want to be there. Not very expressive, except to cut
short and hang up on me when he thinks I'm done.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"dwight" <dwight@tfrogX.com> wrote in message
news:gr7rjf$dut$1@news.motzarella.org...

This is what so many forget, and what my old boss used to be
so fond of
pointing out.

The company can advertise, market, produce, stock, ship, and
do all other
functions flawlessly. But the customer only knows the
individual with whom
they are dealing at any one given moment. If that
salesperson is having a
bad day, it forever ruins the company's image in that
consumer's mind.

When I was in sales, whether phone or face-to-face, my
mantra was that the
person I was talking to was my very best friend. At that
moment. It's
amazing what customers will forgive when you use that
approach.

:()

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Claimed high scanned film "information" is mostly garbage
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/945d6f2385eb0b52?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 7:49 am
From: Alan Browne

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article <af2dnWvKcNIO_0vUnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>> If the scanner can't differentiate black on the film from true black
>>> without saturating the whites then the film density exceeds the
>>> dynamic range of the scanner.
>>
>> Yes. That's effectively what I said: there is less than 16 bits of
>> dynamic range in film - about 13-14 at best (as I said). Therefore
>> the file contains 'filler' (as I said).
>>
> Were you asleep when they taught the difference between subject and
> object. Under the conditions you describe, the film exceeds the
> capability of the scanner, you are claiming the opposite.

No. I said the film had a dynamic range of about 13-14 bits. The
scanners I have are 16 bits making 2 or more bits/chan in the file
'filler'.

Were you asleep when you read what I wrote?

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 8:19 am
From: Kennedy McEwen

In article <PuqdnexDe_Xx7krUnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>> In article <af2dnWvKcNIO_0vUnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan
>>Browne <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>>> If the scanner can't differentiate black on the film from true
>>>>black without saturating the whites then the film density exceeds
>>>>the dynamic range of the scanner.
>>>
>>> Yes. That's effectively what I said: there is less than 16 bits of
>>>dynamic range in film - about 13-14 at best (as I said). Therefore
>>>the file contains 'filler' (as I said).
>>>
>> Were you asleep when they taught the difference between subject and
>>object. Under the conditions you describe, the film exceeds the
>>capability of the scanner, you are claiming the opposite.
>
>No. I said the film had a dynamic range of about 13-14 bits. The
>scanners I have are 16 bits making 2 or more bits/chan in the file
>'filler'.
>
If it was "filler" then you would be able to see the "filler" between
the film black and true black, without having to saturate the whites.
Your own evidence is that this is not the case, the film black scans as
"dead black" in your own words!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 12:17 pm
From: Alan Browne

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article <PuqdnexDe_Xx7krUnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>> In article <af2dnWvKcNIO_0vUnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan
>>> Browne <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>>>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>>>> If the scanner can't differentiate black on the film from true
>>>>> black without saturating the whites then the film density exceeds
>>>>> the dynamic range of the scanner.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. That's effectively what I said: there is less than 16 bits of
>>>> dynamic range in film - about 13-14 at best (as I said). Therefore
>>>> the file contains 'filler' (as I said).
>>>>
>>> Were you asleep when they taught the difference between subject and
>>> object. Under the conditions you describe, the film exceeds the
>>> capability of the scanner, you are claiming the opposite.
>>
>> No. I said the film had a dynamic range of about 13-14 bits. The
>> scanners I have are 16 bits making 2 or more bits/chan in the file
>> 'filler'.
>>
> If it was "filler" then you would be able to see the "filler" between
> the film black and true black, without having to saturate the whites.
> Your own evidence is that this is not the case, the film black scans as
> "dead black" in your own words!

Right - which means between the point where some light gets through to
the sensor and the least it can sense, there are 2-3 bits of dead,
useless data. But those bits are stuffed into the file simply wasting
storage space.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photography is Not a Crime, It's a First Amendment Right
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/256feefad4f3ad75?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 7:42 am
From: Chris H

In message <Xns9BE36AEC1D376ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30>, HEMI-Powered
<none@none.sn> writes
>Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>>>Are you off your meds entirely or did you perhaps double up by
>>>accident?
>>
>> China was pulling the strings and has put up the most money.
>> The US is a basket case thanks to GWB and needs anyone who can
>> help it.
>>
>You really need better meds, you Far Left Loon! Barack Hussein Obama
>has ALREADY racked up MORE approved deficit spending than his
>previous 43 predecessors combined. But, let's look at the numbers to
>prove this.
>
>When George W. Bush took office in 2001, the national debt stood at
>about $4.7T. Just before the huge TARP bailout and the previous
>Fannie and Freddie debacle - approved by a Democratic Congress I need
>to point out - the debt had risen to about $9.1T. Right now, even
>without any spending on the 2009 budget, Obama's national debt
>already stands at $11.3T. That's over 2 TRILLION dollars HE has added
>in just 2 1/2 months! And, if he gets his way with the new budget,
>meaning the Republicans don't cut off his balls in 2010 and shut this
>horsehit down, he will add another 3-5 TRILLION dollars in national
>debt in just 3 years, and OVER 10 TRILLION within 8-10 years.
>
>Sorry, Chris, but it just doesn't wash continuing to blame Bush. This
>is nor Obama's recession, it is now Obama's war, except he refuses to
>call it a war, and it is Obama's gigantic expansion of the federal
>governement.
>
>But just to make sure that you and the other Far Left Loons and
>Socialists out there understand this correctly, these are NOT my
>numbers, they aren't Fox News' numbers and aren't even the Republican
>minorities numbers. They are - you ready for this, Socialist? - the
>CBO (Congressional Budget Office) numbers. And, if you still can't
>see correctly without your meds calming you down, then point out even
>ONE example of the president, Turbo Tax Cheat Tim Geithner, Nancy
>Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd or any of the Loons telling you
>THEIR deficit and national debt projects. You CAN'T prove me wrong,
>because these clowns refuse to commit to a number and pretty much lie
>through their teeth.
>

Well that post just conclusively proves the stupidity of the Hemi...

.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Most Intelligent Interpolation Software
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4e2858c8f8bb9ce4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 8:06 am
From: "T. Parker"

On Apr 4, 10:46 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> T. Parker wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 8:41 pm, Jürgen Exner <jurge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "T. Parker" <tomparke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Apr 4, 8:23 pm, Marco Tedaldi <news0309.kru...@spamgourmet.com>
> >>> I got documents in jpeg that is only 72 dpi. I'd
> >>> like the image processor to make the text
> >>> darker turning it into 300 dpi.
> >> That number in a JPEG file is totally meaningless because the dot
> >> density (DPI) is determined only if and when that photo or document is
> >> produced on a _PHYSICAL_ medium like e.g. a monitor or a piece of paper.
> >> And at that moment the density is recomputed anyway by the appropriate
> >> driver for the specific hardware, like some photo printers go up to
> >> 5000DPI nowadays.
>
> >> Therefore there is neither need nor benefit in changing the DPI value in
> >> a JPEG.
>
> >> jue
>
> > Well. The contents of my jpegs are texts or
> > letters, alphabeths, numbers only extracted
> > from google books. When printing on a
> > 8 x 11.5" paper, the effective dpi is only
> > 72. If I can find a program that can make
> > the text darker by filling it up with blacks,
> > then it can become 300 dpi when printed.
> > Get the idea?
>
> What you're saying makes no sense. Changing the density of the text will
> make no difference whatever to the DPI of the image.
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's like this. Supposed you scan a book at 300 dpi.
You print it at 300 dpi.

Now if you scan a book at 72 dpi, you print it at
72 dpi.

However, if you scan a book at 72 dpi, and you
can image process the text or fonts to make it
increase in density. Then it's like upgrading
the image to become 300 dpi equivalently
speaking. This won't work in photos because
you can't add information that is not there,
but in texts or fonts, you can add information
by giving more density to it. Then the final
print of it would match the one scanned at
300 dpi (because after you get the 72 dpi
book image, you add information to the
texts or fonts making it look like you scanned
it at 300 dpi).

Of course, one can just scan it at 300 dpi
in the first place, but in the google books
where the final image is only 72 dpi, you
can add post image processing to improve
the quality and density of the texts or fonts
to make it equal to a 300 dpi scanned image
(sorta).

Parker

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 8:13 am
From: John McWilliams

T. Parker wrote:
> On Apr 4, 10:46 pm, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> T. Parker wrote:
>>> On Apr 4, 8:41 pm, Jürgen Exner <jurge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "T. Parker" <tomparke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 4, 8:23 pm, Marco Tedaldi <news0309.kru...@spamgourmet.com>
>>>>> I got documents in jpeg that is only 72 dpi. I'd
>>>>> like the image processor to make the text
>>>>> darker turning it into 300 dpi.
>>>> That number in a JPEG file is totally meaningless because the dot
>>>> density (DPI) is determined only if and when that photo or document is
>>>> produced on a _PHYSICAL_ medium like e.g. a monitor or a piece of paper.
>>>> And at that moment the density is recomputed anyway by the appropriate
>>>> driver for the specific hardware, like some photo printers go up to
>>>> 5000DPI nowadays.
>>>> Therefore there is neither need nor benefit in changing the DPI value in
>>>> a JPEG.
>>>> jue
>>> Well. The contents of my jpegs are texts or
>>> letters, alphabeths, numbers only extracted
>>> from google books. When printing on a
>>> 8 x 11.5" paper, the effective dpi is only
>>> 72. If I can find a program that can make
>>> the text darker by filling it up with blacks,
>>> then it can become 300 dpi when printed.
>>> Get the idea?
>> What you're saying makes no sense. Changing the density of the text will
>> make no difference whatever to the DPI of the image.
>>
>> --
>> W
>> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
>> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
>> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> It's like this. Supposed you scan a book at 300 dpi.
> You print it at 300 dpi.
>
> Now if you scan a book at 72 dpi, you print it at
> 72 dpi.
>
> However, if you scan a book at 72 dpi, and you
> can image process the text or fonts to make it
> increase in density. Then it's like upgrading
> the image to become 300 dpi equivalently
> speaking. This won't work in photos because
> you can't add information that is not there,
> but in texts or fonts, you can add information
> by giving more density to it. Then the final
> print of it would match the one scanned at
> 300 dpi (because after you get the 72 dpi
> book image, you add information to the
> texts or fonts making it look like you scanned
> it at 300 dpi).
>
> Of course, one can just scan it at 300 dpi
> in the first place, but in the google books
> where the final image is only 72 dpi, you
> can add post image processing to improve
> the quality and density of the texts or fonts
> to make it equal to a 300 dpi scanned image

You really need to grok the diff. between pixels and dots.

You scan at a dot rate, and 72-300 are extremely low. What you end up
with is something in pixels, with 300 ppi being high quality if the
underlying input is also HQ. When you send to a printer, the driver
thereof converts the ppi info into how many dpi's to lay down. Again,
300 dpi is a low res. print, regardless of the quality of the input.

But JPEGs of text is plain stupid, unless a small plaque in a web page.

--
john mcwilliams

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 9:13 am
From: Jürgen Exner

"T. Parker" <tomparker52@gmail.com> wrote:
>It's like this. Supposed you scan a book at 300 dpi.
>You print it at 300 dpi.

So you are printing on an older inkjet printer, fine. Modern printers
have a significant higher resolution.

>Now if you scan a book at 72 dpi, you print it at
>72 dpi.

Are you printing on an ancient dot matrix printer? Those had about
72DPI. If you are not printing on one of those, then you are not
printing at 72DPI.

jue

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 9:18 am
From: Jürgen Exner

Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"T. Parker" <tomparker52@gmail.com> wrote:
>>It's like this. Supposed you scan a book at 300 dpi.
>>You print it at 300 dpi.
>
>So you are printing on an older inkjet printer, fine. Modern printers
>have a significant higher resolution.
>
>>Now if you scan a book at 72 dpi, you print it at
>>72 dpi.
>
>Are you printing on an ancient dot matrix printer? Those had about
>72DPI. If you are not printing on one of those, then you are not
>printing at 72DPI.

PS: you really, really should read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch#DPI_or_PPI_in_digital_image_files

jue

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 10:31 am
From: TheRealSteve

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:04:25 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
>"T. Parker" <tomparker52@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What is the image editing software with the most intelligent
>> and sophisticated interpolation technology available that
>> you have encountered or heard of?
>
>It's interesting that I'm not hearing this question more often. I suppose
>that in this age of 12, 15, and 21MP cameras, there's not that much use for
>it any more.
>
>Qimage offers a lot of different algorithms and seems to get a lot of
>respect. But it's only for making prints, it doesn't give you the files to
>play with (in normal use, anyway). And it's Windows only.
>
>Genuie Fractals is the "usual suspect". I was never impressed, but lots of
>people were.
>
>Here, I find Photoshop perfectly adequate, but I'm usually downsampling, not
>upsampling.

Downsampling requires interpolation also if you're not going by
factors of 2. Rotate requires interpolation if you're not going by
multiples of 90 degrees.

Programs that can use sinc/lanczos interpolation will give the best
results. The ones I use that use it are GIMP and XnView. I'm sure
there's others.

>> One that can make
>> old 640x480 pictures come alive in 10 megapixels
>> resolution.
>
>More than a tad unreasonable, that...

Any can do that if you're standing far enough away.

Steve

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Home colorizer
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8a3e777e80e3c092?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 10:13 am
From: Marvin

GregS wrote:
> A bit off subject. 3-4 years ago I bought a Glidden home
> paint selector. You put in a photo of your house, and then can select colors and
> paint over and see whats its going to look like. I have a big problem
> on the laptop getting those colors right. But anyway, I bought the program
> at The Home Depot and now they have nothing like that. Perhaps
> one of the other pant companies have an on line program. I call Glidden
> and get weird change and web site is goofy. I guess bought up by some company.
>
> I thought my new camera was a bit pinkish, and had to change the hue a couple points to make
> the wall look yellow, right off the bat. Its probably the display, and not the program however.
>
> greg

A good guide to this topic is available at
http://www.wemako.ch/_pdf/Color_management.pdf/ and other
sites. Search for other sites with Google.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Online Backup
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/42dbb5294c04e50c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 11:24 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Eric Miller <miller_nospam_eric@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Is anyone using an online backup service to store images? I have been
>looking at the Carbonite service and thinking about giving it a try. Tales
>of good or bad experiences and recommendations for alternate providers would
>be appreciated.

The backup that works best is the backup that you will use regularly.
It's it's too much of a PITA then it won't get used.

That said, everything has risks. The goal to to reduce risk appropriately.

If you can set up an external disk with automatic software to make
VERSIONED backups then that takes care of most computer failures.

If you make a copy of that backup disk regularly and then keep that
copy outside of your home (office, safe, bank, etc.) then that will
take care of most of that bad things that can happen to your house.

If you make two copies then you improve security against disk failure.
If you buy a new disk every few years that has the latest technology
then you protect yourself against obsolescence.

An online backup service has the advantage of being highly secure
against most physical catastrophies, but is weak against economic
problems (the company can fail). It also costs more.

Optical backup protects against overwriting valuable data, but because
it's not dynamic you run the risk of having it go bad/unreadable and
not knowing that it's gone bad.

So, how valuable are your data?

And that reminds me - time to update my 2nd backup.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

==============================================================================
TOPIC: JPEG to PDF... lost of qualty
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e3f620bd2e0fe5e4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 11:35 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
>> T. Parker <tomparker52@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>But Lanczos is clearly more superior than Photoshop Bilinear
>>>or Bicubic Interpolation. Or maybe in some pictures, Binliear,
>>>Bicubic is better than Lanczos?
>
>> Why would Adobe spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a feature
>> that nobody cares about?
>
>What has that got to with Lanczos resampling,

It's a feature that nobody cares about.

> which is a freely
>available published method

Irrelevant. Turning a method into actual software costs money.
Counting design, implementation, and testing (don't forget UI), that's
roughly 1-2 man years. There's $300,000 of expense. Given that
Photoshop costs about $400 (ballpark average of 1st-time sales and
upgrades) that means that the feature has to sell an additional 800
copies of Photoshop.

>the virtues and defects of which have been

Nobody cares.

>It's obviously true that most photographers don't care, but it's
>equally obvious that some do.

No, it isn't obvious. DO you think that there are 800 people out
there will to spend an average of $400 to get that feature?

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

==============================================================================
TOPIC: life after Windows....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/02823f38853c8136?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 11:36 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer writes:
>
>> As YOU define "misuse".
>
>The original assertion was that a properly designed API could prevent all
>misuse.

As YOU define "misuse".

Let's look at what you originally wrote:

If a program creates a file, how does the API check to see that
the file's name is correct?

Looks like your memory is as good as everything else you write.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 11:37 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:
>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Ray Fischer writes:
>>
>>> As YOU define "misuse".
>>
>> The original assertion was that a properly designed API could prevent all
>> misuse.
>
>Ray, MxsManiac is trolling you, using his standard technique. You're
>wasting your time talking to him.

I don't mind embrrassing him. He's an idiot.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 11:38 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
>Chris H writes:
>
>> Try talking to them about embedded systems which makes you the largest
>> section of processors in the world... up until 5 years ago an 8051 8 bit
>> MCU made up 1 in three processors on the planet.
>
>They don't know any more about embedded systems than

They know more than you, idiot.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 2:24 pm
From: Mxsmanic

Ray Fischer writes:

> As YOU define "misuse".

Misuse wasn't qualified.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 2:25 pm
From: Mxsmanic

Ray Fischer writes:

> They know more than you ...

I know that embedded systems exist, and they do not, so, clearly, I know more
than they do about it.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What WERE they thinking?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c0c1b9b246629ba7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 11:54 am
From: fgp

Something like this:

http://failblog.org/2009/03/22/holy-soap-fail/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: courting Trumpeter Swans picture
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e533c5c4593406b2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 4 2009 12:50 pm
From: me@mine.net

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:50:58 -0700 (PDT), in rec.photo.digital orida70
<orida70@gmail.com> wrote:

>The image is part of a project I started four years ago on trumpeter
>swans:
>
>http://roycebair.blogspot.com/2009/03/courting-trumpeter-swans-my-vision.html
>
>As you know, the swans mate for life. I'd love to hear your comments.
>Should I continue or give up?

It depends upon what your motivation is. I mentioned a local pair of Mute
Swans to a colleague and he has spent a fair amount of time in the past
several years trying to get those unique photos which come and go in a
matter of seconds, including spending a whole week to capture the hatching
of the cygnets.

http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/2254182_ZSHLp/1/496444148_iqTe2#496444148_iqTe2

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Saturday, April 4, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 12 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic