Re: [OM] New pictures: butterflies and Thailand

[John Hudson]

Erwin Voogt wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Two replies in one message...
> 
> Lex Jenkins wrote:
> 
> Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 17:57:05 PDT
> From: "Lex Jenkins" <lexjenkins@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [OM] New pictures: butterflies and Thailand
> 
> Erwin, if you're scanning prints for your website there's really no need to
> scan at greater than 240-300 ppi.  More doesn't equal better. In fact,
> scanning at 100 ppi will result in screen size images nearly equivalent to
> the original prints.  So a 4"x6" print scanned at 100 ppi will deliver a
> screen sized image measuring only a little larger than 4"x6" on most
> monitors, at an actual resolution of 400x600 ppi.


I would like to add my $0.02 worth. 

I scan prints at 1200 dpi having set the scaling percentage to around
30 0.000000or 4" x 6" prints and 25 0.000000or 5" x 7" prints. I save as an
uncompressed tif file which generally comes in at 8 to 10 mb. I then
resize the tif file to say 600 x 400 pixels, reduce the resolution to
100 dpi, tweek slightly with the unsharp mask, and then save the
uploadable file as a jpeg with about 30ompression. I make no more
than one adjustment to the tif file before I save it as a jpeg. If I am
not satisfied with the jpeg I got back to the tif file and start over
again; I do not manipulate the jpeg file at all. I make a thumbnail by
going back to the tif file and repeating the above process except that
the thumbnail is either 125 pixels wide or high.

Compared to scanning at say 300 dpi and saving directly as a jpeg and
then manipulating the jpeg, the tif to jpeg routine produces far
superior images at least on my monitor. They look to have more life, are
truer to the original print, and display less "noise".

John Hudson
Vancouver, BC

 

 



  





> 
> -------
> 
> Lex, I'm scanning slides, not prints, so to obtain an image size of about
> 800x600 you need 600 DPI. I use 1200 DPI to have some "playground" (although
> almost all the images I have published are "as they are") and because there
> is not much difference in scanning time between 600 en 1200 DPI.
> You're right that it doesn't make sence to scan prints at such a high
> resolution!
> By the way: great pictures on your site!
> 
> Frieder Faig wrote:
> 
> Sorry, I get alway a error, whe trying your site, so I can`t coment on :-(.
> 
> But I read in the german ct` magazine, that a possiblity to improve the
> quality/size
> ratio of JPEG pictures is to soften the background and unimportend details
> bevor
> compressing. The soft parts of the picture can be better compressed.
> ----------
> 
> Xoom behaves very strange. Sometimes it is very fast, often very slow, on
> some computers it won't work, some computers have no problem at all.
> I use IE5 and the behaviour of Xoom seems to depend on which site I have
> visited during a session... very odd (a cookie problem?).
> I don't know if the version with the advertising banners works better than
> the one without. Compare:
> 
> http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/photovoogt/index.html
> http://members.xoom.com/photovoogt/index.html
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> Bye,
> 
> Erwin Voogt
> Utrecht, The Netherlands
> 
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >

< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >