Thanks RIchard for sending me Digest #1572. From there,I am picking this > Its seems that the library market doesn't really have the knowledge and > understanding and probable they are having their fingers burnt by people > stretching the truth and providing different qualities. The consequences > of interpolation and how it can be done well !!!!.
Many Agencies (and many professionals in general) don't have a clue as to how different is a file from camera than a file from scan, and of course if you think of 6 MP file from a scanned 35 mm slide, you are starting with a small file that will almost never withstand interpolation/upsizing, and just a few manipulations before posterization occurs. Last year, one Agency was asking for 100Mb Original files from cameras, showing their ignorance in a pathetic way. > > Maybe as a group we should be producing informative factsheets for the > libraries. I know there are a lot of people out there submitting 35mm > transparencies for libraries so why not 6megapixel files ????, if there > is no moire there etc, then fine. Indeed this is very important , and not only for libraries.The trade organizations do have to get involved into this. You guys have been doing such a great effort in digital initiatives, this would be just another one. Actually I put on hold and then forgot to respond the question some of you asked about US equivalent forums like this ( there is nothing quite like this one, really, nothing beats british irony and sarcasm!!), if in doubt ,ask Niko :-) For those of you wanting to check, go to the Advertising Photographers of America (APA) site www.apanational.com and move around the links or jump to APAdigital and if interested, then subscribe. http://www.apanational.com/education.html You DON"T have to be APA member to join, just like you don't have to be AOP member to be here. Dennis Dunbar, Jeff Schewe, Andrew Rodney, Glen Wexler and David Riecks are part of the Apadigital team. Recently the APA Digital Commitee, led by Dunbar, is getting involved in building up a group of Digital Standards and also has just launched the question to the forum about what shall we define as such, regarding capture, calibration, profiling, output conversions etc, with the idea of checking out what is the real general knowledge of the participants and to eventually try to reach to some balanced publication with easy to follow guidelines for everyone to use when embarking in Digital. A roadmap to basic quality. And for sure a second, advanced paper can be build up too. I have said it on other ocasions previously, an interaction between the AOP and the APA will do wonders . One more time I make the same comment. > I am producing massive joiners with my d100 at the moment so file size > will not be a problem. I have spoken to a few libraries and they are > extremely bemused by this as they done understand file sizes, that an > 18mb 6 megapixel image contains as much data as an 80mb 35mm scan. Actually I agree on those findings about upsizing files from digicams. I have done myelf extensive testing of upsizing methods and both the PhotoRetouchPro 4x Engine and the Plugin called S-Spline can throw your 6MP file up to134 Mb ( 16 Bits) and retain quality like you will never be able to, when running same tests with film scans. Basically what I do is to upsize ( 2x,3x,4x) then make a simple Image Size reduction back to original size and compare resized and original both at 200% screen magnification. The Stair interpolation ,going in 10% increments in PS, make it OK up to 200% upsizing(3x), and it is an action you can do yourself or buy it . There are reports of D30 files upsized up to 100Mb, of course, all depending on the quality of the original file. No doubt a basic guidelines for this will be all the more adequate.Specially to clearly point out that an out focus or blurred original will look many times times worse.! ( unless of course there is a deliberate personal aesthetical thing involved ) Interesting enough ,one of our NY fellows in APAdigital has been insisting on his findings that files from digital cameras can go to Proofing systems ( Kodak Approval,Matchprint,etc) at the "suggested" Canon resolution of 180 ppi to reach out the same quality in CMYK output than the scans from film made at 300 ppi for the same final printing size. A factor of 1.2x vs the standard 2x method when estimating resolution and lpi would apply to digicam files.Actual number should be around 1.2x the LPI. (i.e., if the final output is 150 LPI, your ppi should be 180, not 300) Have you tried that one?? This would obviously reduce the need to upsize camera files in big chunks, and prove there are way too many Urban Myths about files from "small digital cameras". All the best. Jorge Parra APA/ASMP www.jorgeparra.com =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
