Nice pics- poor scanning results?
John NoSpam
print, it comes out like crap. The only way to get nice ones so far are to
set the resolution. These pics will need to go on my Website. The problem
is that these High res (300 dpi) pics are huge in size - at least 250kb in
size. Dial up users will go insane downloading these. Any suggestions on
how to get high quality res pics for my website without setting the scanner
resolution high? Let me know.... Thanks!
Graham
application - such as Microsoft Photo Editor and then save them as jpg
files. This will usually reduce the file size to less than one tenth of the
equivalent bitmap.
Graham
"John NoSpam" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Z36V9.685392$%m4.33...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Barry Pearson
news:Z36V9.685392$%m4.33...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
I scan (slides rather than prints) with high resolution (giving me lots of
pixels), and do my main manipulation while I still have lots of pixels. Then I
reduce to the required number of pixels, sharpen with unsharp mask carefully,
then compress to JPEG carefully.
Typical example: original scan (4000 ppi) - about 20 megapixels, 60 MB. Reduced
size (web-size) uncompressed image: perhaps 700 x 500 pixels, about 1 MB.
Compressed JPEG: about 75 KB.
See my web site, click on (say) the Kenya gallery, click on "info", and it gives
you the numbers (including Photoshop unsharp mask parameters).
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
Robert Feinman
resolution to 72dpi and turn on resample. You should get an image 4x6" on the
screen which will display properly. In addition the file size will be much
smaller (about 10%). Save as jpeg. You can also adjust the size at the same time
if you don't want 4x6. The only thing that matters online is the size in pixels.
Computers display at 72dpi so too see how big an image will appear divide the
pixel size by 72. (Most image editing software does this calculation for you in
the resize box). Printing requires about 200-300 dpi. So if you want reprints of
your prints scan at 300dpi and save a copy. Then reszie to 72 and save as jpeg
for the web.
You will get *much* better results if you can scan your negative instead of your
prints. You will need a scanner that does negatives. That's another topic..
--
Robert D Feinman
robertd...@netscape.net
Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramic Photographs: http://robertdfeinman.com
Barry Pearson
news:3E2570E8...@netscape.net...
> You need to resize your pictures in your photo editing program. Set the
> resolution to 72dpi and turn on resample. You should get an image 4x6" on the
> screen which will display properly. In addition the file size will be much
> smaller (about 10%). Save as jpeg. You can also adjust the size at the same
time
> if you don't want 4x6. The only thing that matters online is the size in
pixels.
> Computers display at 72dpi so too see how big an image will appear divide the
> pixel size by 72. (Most image editing software does this calculation for you
in
> the resize box). Printing requires about 200-300 dpi. So if you want reprints
of
> your prints scan at 300dpi and save a copy. Then reszie to 72 and save as jpeg
> for the web.
You are correct when you say "The only thing that matters online is the size in
pixels". That is why it is best if possible to ignore anything per inch
throughout the whole process if possible.
First: computer displays rarely display at 72 ppi. {Historically that was
probably more common, especially with Macs). For example my laptop displays at
117 ppi, and my external monitor is currently set to about 90 ppi, both
displaying the same content of course. It is perhaps best either to look at
images already on the web that are the required size, and see what their size in
pixels is (with IE, right click and check the properties), or decide what
screens to go for (nearly half of web use is by 800 x 600 screens, and nearly
all the rest are larger). Fitting it in a box 700 x 500 gives quite a generous
image, which nearly everyone can see (if necessary using "full screen mode") -
most on the web are probably smaller.
Second, the better photo-editing software won't talk about dpi, of course.
Neither will some scanning software (such as the software I use). That is
because what matters is pixels, not dots. (Dots is historical usage by some
scanning experts and some scanning software, and has at least 2 very different
meanings when printing, neither of which is really useful here).
My recommendation is:
- Scan at a high resolution to provide contingency for horizon-levelling,
cropping and other manipulation. (If these really are not needed, then use just
the right resolution).
- Edit as much as possible without resampling. Keep this edited version with for
later use. When printing, the ideal software (certainly Photoshop, and Paint
Shop Pro if you take some diversions) will allow inches or centimetres to be
specified, and ppi can be ignored.
- Reduce to a specific size in pixels, not to a specific ppi, for web use.
(After editing, there won't be a simple relationship such as a standard 72 ppi
between the original ppi and the ppi that the editing software talks about - it
tends to be best to resample from whatever it is after editing to whatever the
target size is as pixels. Photoshop's File > Automate > Fit Image is good for
this). I keep this version as a separate file (because it is here I apply
sharpening). This may be about 1 MB per layer.
- Then convert to JPEG, preferably with a preview package to enable the best
compression to be judged. This may be about 75 KB - good compression can often
achieve at least a factor of 10.
If at all possible, use just "pixels" when talking about digital
images/photographs and web images, and use just "inches" or "centimetres" when
talking about physical media such as slides and prints. It is unfortunate that
some packages may try to divert you into talking about ppi, (and scanning is
quite likely to need ppi or dpi), but they can be confusing and involve
unnecessary mathematics.
John NoSpam
anyway,....
"Graham" <Gra...@NOSPAMbrettvalley.btinternet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b03anl$2eg$1...@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk...
John NoSpam
"Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Z6aV9.219$Gj1....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
Barry Pearson
> Thanks for the advice,but I do not use slides.
It doesn't matter. The basics are the same. Much of what I said is independent
of what the original source is.
Jimmie
I think the original poster said he was getting crappy results from
scanning prints.
So first, it might be an idea to scan the original negs (instead of
using the prints).
HTH
Jimmie
Karl Snyder
some electrons so they looked like this:
It might also be he has a crappy picture to scan or a crappy scanner,
not to mention an operator malfunction.
Karl S.
Rob C
I was having crappy results scanning 4x6's until I switched to glossy
prints. I scan the prints at 300dpi, then resize them to fit my needs.
You can see my stuff at www.norlink.net/~rchand/index.htm
Hope this helps.
Rob
John NoSpam
Cascades (aerial and via land). Using a scanner is easy. It is the process
of scanning with a particular setting is my only challange. Next time you
plan insult someone, please ask to see their images first hand (not via
email either).
"Karl Snyder" <KarlS...@rockymountainnp.com> wrote in message
news:3e26a468.356200406@netnews...
Dale Rollands
The idea of this newsgroup is to help each other NOT insult people.
Please remember this.
***********************************************************************
***************************************************************************
McLeod
downsize in software...like Photoshop or even better Adobe Image Ready which
will prepare your image for web use.
"John NoSpam" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Z36V9.685392$%m4.33...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...