How big are your photos? Poll OT
Porter
What is the general range of your larger sized images? Is anyone here
regularly exceeding a range of roughly 2000 x 3000 pixels? If yes, would
you mind sharing what you are doing to those images in general, and their
final output? Is it mainly for printing, archival storage, or for something
else?
Oh, one other thing: What is your primary source of large images? Scanner
or digital camera?
Thanks,
Porter
Okay I lied, just one more thing please? Could those of you with digital
cameras exceeding 2 megapixels chime in with the size of your current
camera? If you do plan to purchase or upgrade to higher pixels in this next
12 months? What size would you be planning to purchase?
Kiri
my documents usually don't exceed 1280 x 960 pix, I use a Fujifilm Finepix 1300 camera and that is the largest resolution I can get. The camera only outputs JPG's, so I don't have much choice for the moment. I'm planning to buy a new camera, because I would like to save them in a better format like TIFF or BMP, and to have a better resolution too, 1,3 megapixels is just not enough to have a lot of detail. I mainly archive my photos on harddisk, when my folder (with lot's of subfolders) approaches 650MB, I save them to CD. I always archive my photos unchanged. I choose which ones are not too bad, correct them in PSP, then save them in another subfolder. I only print them for a couple of friends who haven't got a computer.
Once in a while I scan very large things, like newspaper-pages or posters, I have to scan those in 4 or even more times, then combine them in PSP and save the final image, the last poster I scanned ended up 2040 x 2960 pixels.(817k JPG) The largest one I did was 4000 x 6000 pixels (1520k JPG). I never printed one of these large pics.
Hope this can help you.
Kind regards,
Kiri
"Porter" <campratty...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:wXn39.151337$uh7.25613@sccrnsc03...
Steve-A
I'm using an Olympus E-10 (mainly because it was a gift!). The "prints" I make are for
personal use, and very rarely distribut them. I alos use ot for work, where I just need a record
of the work done/in progress.
--
Steve-A
remove panties to reply
Rick Simon
news:wXn39.151337$uh7.25613@sccrnsc03:
> For anyone working with portrait photographs:
I rarely do portraits. More along the lines of scenery and/or product
images.
> What is the general range of your larger sized images? Is anyone here
> regularly exceeding a range of roughly 2000 x 3000 pixels? If yes,
> would you mind sharing what you are doing to those images in general,
> and their final output? Is it mainly for printing, archival storage,
> or for something else?
That's around the high end for me. Sometimes larger than that, but more
often a touch smaller than that (2272x1704). As far as what I do with
them, the final output forms usually end up on web sites.
> Oh, one other thing: What is your primary source of large images?
> Scanner or digital camera?
Used to be scanner, but is moving more towards camera.
> Okay I lied, just one more thing please? Could those of you with
> digital cameras exceeding 2 megapixels chime in with the size of your
> current camera? If you do plan to purchase or upgrade to higher
> pixels in this next 12 months? What size would you be planning to
> purchase?
4 megapixel. Upgraded to this one recently, so I'm not planning on any
more upgrades in this area in the near future.
--
Rick Simon
rsi...@cris.com
Bob Dietz
> For anyone working with portrait photographs:
>
> What is the general range of your larger sized images? Is anyone here
> regularly exceeding a range of roughly 2000 x 3000 pixels? If yes, would
> you mind sharing what you are doing to those images in general, and their
> final output? Is it mainly for printing, archival storage, or for something
> else?
Virtually all of the portraits are 1200x1600 from my Fuji 2400z.
I usually end up correcting for less than ideal lighting and
red-eye (the 2400z is especially bad about red-eye). They are
usually cropped and printed as 5 x 7. They are all archived
to CD and HD.
>
> Oh, one other thing: What is your primary source of large images? Scanner
> or digital camera?
>
> Thanks,
> Porter
>
> Okay I lied, just one more thing please? Could those of you with digital
> cameras exceeding 2 megapixels chime in with the size of your current
> camera? If you do plan to purchase or upgrade to higher pixels in this next
> 12 months? What size would you be planning to purchase?
Does 2.1 megapixels qualify? I plan to upgrade someday, but not in the
next 12 months. When I do buy, I'll want at least 2000 x 3000 pixels,
more manual controls, provision for an external flash and the ability
to attach a filter to the lens.
Bob
Larry Huls
wrote:
>Porter wrote:
>> For anyone working with portrait photographs:
>>
>> What is the general range of your larger sized images? Is anyone here
>> regularly exceeding a range of roughly 2000 x 3000 pixels? If yes, would
>> you mind sharing what you are doing to those images in general, and their
>> final output? Is it mainly for printing, archival storage, or for something
>> else?
>
(Forgive me for tagging onto your post, Bob, but I missed the original
posting!)
Has this program been discussed in this group already? It seems as
though it might meet the needs of some here.:
-- Larry
PR
<campratty...@attbi.com> wrote:
>Okay I lied, just one more thing please? Could those of you with digital
>cameras exceeding 2 megapixels chime in with the size of your current
>camera?
2.1 Mpixels
>If you do plan to purchase or upgrade to higher pixels in this next
>12 months?
No.
--
http://www.ransen.com/
Repligator - Easy graphics effects
Gliftic - Easy decorative tilings
Kris Zaklika
It's just wavelet compression. Take a look at JPEG 2000 or
a Lurawave plug-in (luratech.com).
>
> -- Larry
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kris Zaklika Jasc Software, Inc. The
Product Ideas: id...@jasc.com Power
Customer Service: customer...@jasc.com To
Technical Support: tec...@jasc.com Create
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trev
>
> What is the general range of your larger sized images? Is anyone here
> regularly exceeding a range of roughly 2000 x 3000 pixels? If yes, would
> you mind sharing what you are doing to those images in general, and their
> final output? Is it mainly for printing, archival storage, or for
something
> else?
>
> Oh, one other thing: What is your primary source of large images?
Scanner
> or digital camera?
Not Portraits But my 35mm scanns are bigger than that untill croped. They
are printed and stored on CD-Rom. The digital camera shots are smaller, 2048
x 1536
>
> Okay I lied, just one more thing please? Could those of you with digital
> cameras exceeding 2 megapixels chime in with the size of your current
> camera? If you do plan to purchase or upgrade to higher pixels in this
next
> 12 months? What size would you be planning to purchase?
>
3 Mp. Upgrade only if my lottery no's come up. My chose would be a G2 at 4
Mp or a 7i at 5 and a bit.
Bob Dietz
No, it hasn't. But the claims at the web site seem ridiculous.
***begin suspect quote***
JPEG and GIF compression software can reduce a 10Mb scanned
photo to around 3-5Mb, with a noticeable reduction in quality.
Try emailing that on a 56k modem! Not to mention the disc
storage problem.
Yet incredibly, MyPhotoZip!^(TM) can compact the identical 10Mb
image to around 100Kb or less - without any visible loss of
picture quality - and you can email it in a flash!
***end suspect quote***
Since you tagged this on to my message, I think it's only fair
for me to cite the adage "If it seems too good to be true, it
probably is."
When I search for MyPhotoZip on google, all that I find are
advertisements. Strange that no journalist has seen fit to
cover this 'trailblazing technology.'
While there is a free download, being the skeptical, suspicious
bastard that I am, I can't help but wonder if that download
wouldn't turn into an experience I 'will never ever forget'
no matter how hard I might try.
Bob
Dan Campbell
>
> <snipped>
> Porter
>
> Okay I lied, just one more thing please? Could those of you with digital
> cameras exceeding 2 megapixels chime in with the size of your current
> camera? If you do plan to purchase or upgrade to higher pixels in this next
> 12 months? What size would you be planning to purchase?
>
>
>
I have an Olympus C3030Z (3mp, 2048x1536) that I purchased in May of 2000.
This is my first digital camera, and I do not plan to purchase anything
larger in the next 12 months.
Kris Zaklika
Actually, you can get significantly higher compressions
using wavelets than you can with GIF or JPEG. If you
compress enough you will see artifacts. These, however,
differ from JPEG artifacts. I have seen compressions of
200:1 with fairly reasonable quality, something you'd
be hard put to it to do with JPEG. However, what is
really irritating is that these Someone'sPhotoZip people
act as if wavelet compression hasn't been around for years
and been well known (at least by those who know it well :)
For a more unbiased view look at the Luratech site
(http://194.231.34.35/index_eng.html) or any number of
academic sites.
> When I search for MyPhotoZip on google, all that I find are
> advertisements. Strange that no journalist has seen fit to
> cover this 'trailblazing technology.'
>
> While there is a free download, being the skeptical, suspicious
> bastard that I am, I can't help but wonder if that download
> wouldn't turn into an experience I 'will never ever forget'
> no matter how hard I might try.
>
> Bob
--
Kerry Pierce
>>For anyone working with portrait photographs:
>>
>>What is the general range of your larger sized images? Is anyone here
>>regularly exceeding a range of roughly 2000 x 3000 pixels? If yes, would
>>you mind sharing what you are doing to those images in general, and their
>>final output? Is it mainly for printing, archival storage, or for something
>>else?
My Sony DSC-F707, 5mp, outputs images at 2560x1920 pixels. Most editing
is minor enhancements, color correction, etc, and touch-up, depending on
the subject, intended for prints. Some photos have heavy editing for
youthful appearance purposes. My efforts thus far are rather crude, (both
in photography and PSP editing) but I'm making progress at a snail's
pace... I also greatly enjoy creating abstract portraits from my shots.
Of course, all images are archived on CD. I prefer candid style portraits
to formal.
This is a portrait with facial softening, age line reduction and normal
processing.
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=190790
Here's a sample of an abstract portrait created from the above image.
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=190780
some other abstract samples can be seen here.
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/inbox&page=all
Here's a sample of standard enhancements plus blur of the background for
simulated narrower DOF
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=160684
>>Oh, one other thing: What is your primary source of large images? Scanner
>>or digital camera?
At the moment, the camera is the primary source, but I've acquired both a
flatbed and a negative scanner. These are not yet installed, but I presume
that the images, especially from the negative scanner, will produce much
larger images than the camera.
>>Okay I lied, just one more thing please? Could those of you with digital
>>cameras exceeding 2 megapixels chime in with the size of your current
>>camera? If you do plan to purchase or upgrade to higher pixels in this next
>>12 months? What size would you be planning to purchase?
My primary camera is 5 megapixels. I plan to upgrade to this camera's
successor, if it is a minimum of 6 megapixels, hopefully 8 megapixels.
Kris Zaklika
>
> "Porter" <campratty...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >>For anyone working with portrait photographs:
> >>
> >>What is the general range of your larger sized images? Is anyone here
> >>regularly exceeding a range of roughly 2000 x 3000 pixels? If yes, would
> >>you mind sharing what you are doing to those images in general, and their
> >>final output? Is it mainly for printing, archival storage, or for something
> >>else?
>
> My Sony DSC-F707, 5mp, outputs images at 2560x1920 pixels. Most editing
> is minor enhancements, color correction, etc, and touch-up, depending on
> the subject, intended for prints. Some photos have heavy editing for
> youthful appearance purposes. My efforts thus far are rather crude, (both
> in photography and PSP editing) but I'm making progress at a snail's
> pace... I also greatly enjoy creating abstract portraits from my shots.
> Of course, all images are archived on CD. I prefer candid style portraits
> to formal.
>
> This is a portrait with facial softening, age line reduction and normal
> processing.
> http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=190790
>
> Here's a sample of an abstract portrait created from the above image.
> http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=190780
And here are the results with the Modigliani and Miro filters:
http://www.mcs.csuhayward.edu/~malek/modigliani6.jpg
http://www.mcs.csuhayward.edu/~malek/miro4.jpg
> some other abstract samples can be seen here.
> http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/inbox&page=all
>
> Here's a sample of standard enhancements plus blur of the background for
> simulated narrower DOF
> http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=160684
>
> >>Oh, one other thing: What is your primary source of large images? Scanner
> >>or digital camera?
>
> At the moment, the camera is the primary source, but I've acquired both a
> flatbed and a negative scanner. These are not yet installed, but I presume
> that the images, especially from the negative scanner, will produce much
> larger images than the camera.
>
> >>Okay I lied, just one more thing please? Could those of you with digital
> >>cameras exceeding 2 megapixels chime in with the size of your current
> >>camera? If you do plan to purchase or upgrade to higher pixels in this next
> >>12 months? What size would you be planning to purchase?
>
> My primary camera is 5 megapixels. I plan to upgrade to this camera's
> successor, if it is a minimum of 6 megapixels, hopefully 8 megapixels.
--
Kerry Pierce
>>> This is a portrait with facial softening, age line reduction and normal
>>> processing.
>>> http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=190790
>>>
>>> Here's a sample of an abstract portrait created from the above image.
>>> http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=190780
>>
>>And here are the results with the Modigliani and Miro filters:
>>http://www.mcs.csuhayward.edu/~malek/modigliani6.jpg
>>http://www.mcs.csuhayward.edu/~malek/miro4.jpg
hmmm... Are you sure you used the image in the link I gave? My abstract
still has a passing resemblance to the lady. I suppose I could get used to
the Modigliani filter's output, but the Miro output doesn't look like her
at all!
:-)
Jean-Luc ERNST
De: "Porter" <campratty...@attbi.com>
Objet: How big are your photos? Poll OT
Date: lundi 5 aoűt 2002 7:21
For anyone working with portrait photographs:
1. What is the general range of your larger sized images?
2000x3000 and a little more (approx. 20x30 cm)
Tiff
300 dpi
17 to 24 Mb original size (more when working, you know...)
2. Is anyone here regularly exceeding a range of roughly 2000 x 3000 pixels?
Regularly, no. Sometime, yes.
3. If yes, would you mind sharing what you are doing to those images in
general, and their final output?
Photo retouching/restoring for printing on argentic paper same size or
bigger (enlargment).
4. Is it mainly for printing, archival storage, or for something else?
Printing.
5. Oh, one other thing: What is your primary source of large images?
Scanner or digital camera?
Scanner.
Thanks,
Porter