[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Anthony... On the subject of high res images for web use PS's Save for Web feature automatically scales an image to the 72 dpi (ok...ppi for the purists here!) resolution 100 x 100 pixel @ 4000ppi = 0.06 x 0.06cm. Saved by Save for Web option the file is now a 100 x 100 pixel @ 72dpi/ppi for a print size of 3.53 x 3.53cm. How d'you retain your high resolutions? D'you save directly as a JPG without going thru the Save for Web? Regards... SD --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Shunith writes: Saved by Save for Web option the file is now a 100 x 100 pixel @ 72dpi/ppi for a print size of 3.53 x 3.53cm. How d'you retain your high resolutions? By not using Save for Web or PS 7. I still use PS 5; I've never seen any reason to upgrade beyond that. An ordinary Save As does not change the DPI. D'you save directly as a JPG without going thru the Save for Web? See above. Save for Web sounds like just another gadget to me--another bloated feature that Adobe added in order to try to persuade people to pay a few hundred dollars for their umpteenth upgrade of a product that already does more than they need. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Anthony Atkielski wrote: An ordinary Save As does not change the DPI. Correct... Save for Web sounds like just another gadget to me--another bloated feature that Adobe added in order to try to persuade people to pay a few hundred dollars for their umpteenth upgrade of a product that already does more than they need. Mm well it does have it's advantages SD --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Shunith writes: Mm well it does have it's advantages Certainly if an upgrade provides something you need or want, no reason not to buy it. But remember that software companies produce upgrades because their business model requires you to buy their products over and over again in order to keep them in business--and not because they are trying to help you by introducing new features. The alternatives for software companies are building new software products instead of bloating the old ones and charging subscription fees to use software instead of just allowing customers to pay for it one time; the former is very expensive and risky compared to rehashing existing products, and the latter is strongly resisted by most customers (except corporate customers who have already become used to this sort of thing on mainframe systems). Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
- Original Message - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Conversion to 72 dpi doesn't do anything, so you can skip that. Anthony, Could you kindly elaborate on that? Also, in a subsequent mail you said: If by resolution you mean DPI, you can forget about that--DPI is meaningless for Web display. If you really do wish to set a DPI, though, set it to 2700 or 4000; if anyone downloads the image as-is and tries to print it in a word-processing program (a common way of using stolen images), the high DPI will cause it to reproduce at a very tiny size, and many people stealing images in this way will not be able to figure out how to fix that, thereby preventing them from using the stolen image. Grateful if you could elaborate on that as well... specially the bit about a dpi (ppi) of 2700-4000.] Thanks Cheers... SD Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
Re sharpening: What if the image is being prepared for a website? Of the three steps--resampling to get the right size and 72 dpi, converting to JPEG format and sharpening--what is the ideal order? Should sharpening still be the very last step? Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 3:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening No, I don't. You never know when you'll need an image _without_ sharpening (remember, sharpening degrades image quality). I don't like to sharpen images even before I get them into Photoshop. I prefer that the raw image be free of sharpening, so that I get as much quality as possible in that raw image. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Stan writes: What if the image is being prepared for a website? The procedure is the same, but the final size for the image is of course quite small compared to the original scan. I do set the JPEG compression a lot higher for Web use than for print use, as download time is important for Web images, and quality is much less of an issue. Of the three steps--resampling to get the right size and 72 dpi, converting to JPEG format and sharpening--what is the ideal order? Saving as JPEG should always be the last step. (However, my images are archived primarily as low-compression JPEGS; this isn't a problem as the vast majority of my final uses involve downsampling the image, anyway.) Conversion to 72 dpi doesn't do anything, so you can skip that. Normally I open an archived image and downsample/unsharp in steps until I reach my final size, then save that. For the Web, I crank up the compression to make the file smaller (usually no more than 6 of 10 in Photoshop 5.x for large images, where quality is presumably more important than download volume, and often 3 for small images, where the inverse is often true). Should sharpening still be the very last step? Always. Sharpening degrades the image, so you don't want to do it until you're done with everything else. And I never sharpen scanned images for archiving; if they need sharpening, I'll do that each time I open them back up for other uses. You never know when a specific use might require the image without sharpening (an image without sharpening is cleaner). Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
BTW, about Web exhibition: what would be preferred policy of image offering for the public ? I mean small GIFs as thumbnails linked to JPEGs of certain resolution of JPEG only approach ? I jus approached the step of building web gallery as part of my soon-to-be web site, so would appreciate any hints ... Also, what would be suitable JPEG resolution to be allowed for image download from web site achieving two goals: good on-screen image quality, optimal size and resolution for fast download and not suitable value usage (to prevent unauthorized download for commercial usage or quality printing). I thought about something like VGA size (640x480) or probably SVGA (800x600), what about resolution ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of S Schwartz Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 3:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening Re sharpening: What if the image is being prepared for a website? Of the three steps--resampling to get the right size and 72 dpi, converting to JPEG format and sharpening--what is the ideal order? Should sharpening still be the very last step? Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 3:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening No, I don't. You never know when you'll need an image _without_ sharpening (remember, sharpening degrades image quality). I don't like to sharpen images even before I get them into Photoshop. I prefer that the raw image be free of sharpening, so that I get as much quality as possible in that raw image. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Alex writes: what would be preferred policy of image offering for the public ? I mean small GIFs as thumbnails linked to JPEGs of certain resolution of JPEG only approach ? It depends on your intended audience and the type of connections and machines you anticipate that they will have. Designing for unsophisticated Web surfers with slow connections and small monitors is different from designing for seasoned surfers with broadband connections and huge monitors. As a general rule, keep in mind that most people have 800x600 screens in 24-bit color, with dial-up connections of 40 Kbps or so. Thumbnails are fine, if they are very small (read: highly compressed) and not too numerous on a single page. I used to use them, but as the number of images increased, it started taking a long time just to download the thumbnails, so I dropped them--but much depends on your site design. As for full-sized images, something under 800x600 is probably best. You need not design for 640x480 monitors--hardly anyone still uses those. And Web-safe colors or GIFs are a waste of time today--full-color 24-bit JPEGs are fine (and preferable for photos in any case), and they download faster. Also, what would be suitable JPEG resolution to be allowed for image download from web site achieving two goals: good on-screen image quality, optimal size and resolution for fast download and not suitable value usage ... Probably between 640x480 and 780x580 or so. Most monitors are set to 800x600 today; quite a few are set to 1024x768 as well. 700x500 is a nice size that still doesn't allow much in the way of printing on paper (although it can be stolen for other Web use). Using a lot of compression degrades images enough to make them difficult to print, too, although it also influences display quality--high compression speeds downloads, too. I thought about something like VGA size (640x480) or probably SVGA (800x600), what about resolution ? Yes, those work. If by resolution you mean DPI, you can forget about that--DPI is meaningless for Web display. If you really do wish to set a DPI, though, set it to 2700 or 4000; if anyone downloads the image as-is and tries to print it in a word-processing program (a common way of using stolen images), the high DPI will cause it to reproduce at a very tiny size, and many people stealing images in this way will not be able to figure out how to fix that, thereby preventing them from using the stolen image. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
Thanks Anthony, appreciate your help. I have my monitor usually set to 1280x1024, but as I infer from your explanations this cannot be considered as common practice, so the target is under 800x600. However, in terms of colors my graphics card/monitor combo works with 32 bit color definitions. Now, if I indeed need 24 bit color, how to tell Photoshop to convert it from 32 down to 24 ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 11:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening Alex writes: what would be preferred policy of image offering for the public ? I mean small GIFs as thumbnails linked to JPEGs of certain resolution of JPEG only approach ? It depends on your intended audience and the type of connections and machines you anticipate that they will have. Designing for unsophisticated Web surfers with slow connections and small monitors is different from designing for seasoned surfers with broadband connections and huge monitors. As a general rule, keep in mind that most people have 800x600 screens in 24-bit color, with dial-up connections of 40 Kbps or so. Thumbnails are fine, if they are very small (read: highly compressed) and not too numerous on a single page. I used to use them, but as the number of images increased, it started taking a long time just to download the thumbnails, so I dropped them--but much depends on your site design. As for full-sized images, something under 800x600 is probably best. You need not design for 640x480 monitors--hardly anyone still uses those. And Web-safe colors or GIFs are a waste of time today--full-color 24-bit JPEGs are fine (and preferable for photos in any case), and they download faster. Also, what would be suitable JPEG resolution to be allowed for image download from web site achieving two goals: good on-screen image quality, optimal size and resolution for fast download and not suitable value usage ... Probably between 640x480 and 780x580 or so. Most monitors are set to 800x600 today; quite a few are set to 1024x768 as well. 700x500 is a nice size that still doesn't allow much in the way of printing on paper (although it can be stolen for other Web use). Using a lot of compression degrades images enough to make them difficult to print, too, although it also influences display quality--high compression speeds downloads, too. I thought about something like VGA size (640x480) or probably SVGA (800x600), what about resolution ? Yes, those work. If by resolution you mean DPI, you can forget about that--DPI is meaningless for Web display. If you really do wish to set a DPI, though, set it to 2700 or 4000; if anyone downloads the image as-is and tries to print it in a word-processing program (a common way of using stolen images), the high DPI will cause it to reproduce at a very tiny size, and many people stealing images in this way will not be able to figure out how to fix that, thereby preventing them from using the stolen image. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
Following your discussion which I find quite interesting I would like to ask something in regard of Nikon's GEM usage for archival stuff. Of course, this is primarily for Nikon scanner users who use GEM routinely. First of all, I found applying GEM at the maximum setting (4) to be most efficient smoothing the patterns significantly (which is most useful for portraiture or general images where large portion of the fame is taken by flat patter (as sky or something like that). Of course, there is certain impact on sharpness, so some amount of sharpening is necessary to bring back the original sharpness (not to speak to sharpen the image further). The question is whether you do apply GEM for archival stuff and if yes, do you perform some light sharpening on the image afterwards to recover the original sharpness ? If yes, what did you find the most appropriate settings of PS unsharp mask to be for that ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 10:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening Stan writes: What if the image is being prepared for a website? The procedure is the same, but the final size for the image is of course quite small compared to the original scan. I do set the JPEG compression a lot higher for Web use than for print use, as download time is important for Web images, and quality is much less of an issue. Of the three steps--resampling to get the right size and 72 dpi, converting to JPEG format and sharpening--what is the ideal order? Saving as JPEG should always be the last step. (However, my images are archived primarily as low-compression JPEGS; this isn't a problem as the vast majority of my final uses involve downsampling the image, anyway.) Conversion to 72 dpi doesn't do anything, so you can skip that. Normally I open an archived image and downsample/unsharp in steps until I reach my final size, then save that. For the Web, I crank up the compression to make the file smaller (usually no more than 6 of 10 in Photoshop 5.x for large images, where quality is presumably more important than download volume, and often 3 for small images, where the inverse is often true). Should sharpening still be the very last step? Always. Sharpening degrades the image, so you don't want to do it until you're done with everything else. And I never sharpen scanned images for archiving; if they need sharpening, I'll do that each time I open them back up for other uses. You never know when a specific use might require the image without sharpening (an image without sharpening is cleaner). Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
I have my monitor usually set to 1280x1024,... The display resolution of 1280 x 1024 has an aspect ratio of 5:4 instead of 4:3 like most of the others. Photos displayed in this resolution will look squeezed. You better use the resolution 1280 x 960 (or 1600 x 1200). With kind regards, Henk de Jong The Netherlands http://burma.wolweb.nl http://annapurna.wolweb.nl Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
You're certainly correct Henk, thanks for pointing out to this fact. Frankly, so far I didn't notice any visible artifacts caused by that which is the reason I wasn't aware about the problem. Strange. I tried 1600x1200, both monitor and graphics card handle this resolution well, but the text is too small for my eyes (I'm glasses wearer) though still discernable. I'll try the former one (1280x960) instead. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Henk de Jong Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 12:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening I have my monitor usually set to 1280x1024,... The display resolution of 1280 x 1024 has an aspect ratio of 5:4 instead of 4:3 like most of the others. Photos displayed in this resolution will look squeezed. You better use the resolution 1280 x 960 (or 1600 x 1200). With kind regards, Henk de Jong The Netherlands http://burma.wolweb.nl http://annapurna.wolweb.nl Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Alex.. You can always increase the font size on your desktop 1600x1200 gives you a much larger area to play with... (increase font size by going to... Settings - Advanced -General). Cheers... SD - Original Message - From: Alex Zabrovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:14 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening You're certainly correct Henk, thanks for pointing out to this fact. Frankly, so far I didn't notice any visible artifacts caused by that which is the reason I wasn't aware about the problem. Strange. I tried 1600x1200, both monitor and graphics card handle this resolution well, but the text is too small for my eyes (I'm glasses wearer) though still discernable. I'll try the former one (1280x960) instead. Regards, Alex Z --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
Oh great, why this idea didn't come up in my mind earlier ?? :-) I'll surely try this out today evening. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shunith Dutt Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 2:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening Alex.. You can always increase the font size on your desktop 1600x1200 gives you a much larger area to play with... (increase font size by going to... Settings - Advanced -General). Cheers... SD - Original Message - From: Alex Zabrovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:14 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening You're certainly correct Henk, thanks for pointing out to this fact. Frankly, so far I didn't notice any visible artifacts caused by that which is the reason I wasn't aware about the problem. Strange. I tried 1600x1200, both monitor and graphics card handle this resolution well, but the text is too small for my eyes (I'm glasses wearer) though still discernable. I'll try the former one (1280x960) instead. Regards, Alex Z --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
Well, if the G450 works this way, I assume my G550 would do the same, right ? So does that mean that the image itself is 24 color in PS while the 32 are only relevant for monitor's appearance ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob Shomler Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 4:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening However, in terms of colors my graphics card/monitor combo works with 32 bit color definitions. Now, if I indeed need 24 bit color, how to tell Photoshop to convert it from 32 down to 24 ? I think you may find that Photoshop is working with 24 bit color, and your graphics card is mapping each 24 bits into a 32 bit word for improved performance. That's how my Matrox G450 is set. So there should be nothing you need do in PS. -- Bob Shomler http://www.shomler.com/ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Well, if the G450 works this way, I assume my G550 would do the same, right ? So does that mean that the image itself is 24 color in PS while the 32 are only relevant for monitor's appearance ? Regards, Alex Z I'd say it is only relevant for the display adapter's performance. As I understand it, 32 vs 24 doesn't affect the monitor's appearance, color-wise. Rather display adapter operations on pixel data can be performed much faster with each pixel stored as a 32-bit word instead of parsing 24-bit strings into 32-bit HW. Perhaps someone who is more familiar with this systems hardware area can better describe it. -- Bob Shomler http://www.shomler.com/ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
BTW, recently some of our fellows pointed me to the Bruce Fraser's article on creativepro.com taking the approach of two-step sharpening. I assume some of more knowledgeable PS users here are more or less familiar with this technique so will probably be able to clarify something for me. Basically, I liked that way separating the sharpness for archival and outputting purposes allowing to preserve maximum of original sharpness though just enough touch of unsharp mask to bring back the sharpness lost in the process of scanning. What I missed is the last point of this process: using Selection menu to select the Edge Mask created in the duplicated image copy to apply it to the original image. I found impossible to do Load Selection into the original image window without making Save Selection (choosing All option) prior to that (in Edge Mask image window). The Save Selection step it missing in his instructions, perhaps because it might seem obvious to slightly more experienced PS user then me. I would appreciate if someone here could clarify this point for me. The link to the article is: http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12189.html Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening Alex writes: I have my monitor usually set to 1280x1024, but as I infer from your explanations this cannot be considered as common practice, so the target is under 800x600. Last time I looked at numbers, just under half of all Web surfers are using 800x600; about 4 out of 5 of the remaining surfers are using 1024x768. Only about one surfer in 50 is still set to 640x480. In fact, 1280x1024 and 1152x864 are both more common than 640x480. However, in terms of colors my graphics card/monitor combo works with 32 bit color definitions. Now, if I indeed need 24 bit color, how to tell Photoshop to convert it from 32 down to 24 ? No need; 24-bit and 32-bit color are equivalent. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
I found impossible to do Load Selection into the original image window without making Save Selection (choosing All option) prior to that (in Edge Mask image window). Curious. I regularly use and have an action for this procedure. After creating the edge mask in the filename copy window, focus is returned to the image file window and I'll do load selection. In the Load Selection dialog box I select for Source Document: filename copy. Once selected, the channel selection shows Gray and the operation New Selection radio button is set. Clicking OK loads the selection. A couple of possibilities if this is not working for you. To load a selection from another source document I think the pixel dimensions must be identical; so if for any reason these were changed in your copy - edge selection file that could be why the copy file is not offered as a source document choice. Also, at this point I'm in 8-bit mode; this process may not work in 16-bit mode. Bob Shomler BTW, recently some of our fellows pointed me to the Bruce Fraser's article on creativepro.com taking the approach of two-step sharpening. I assume some of more knowledgeable PS users here are more or less familiar with this technique so will probably be able to clarify something for me. Basically, I liked that way separating the sharpness for archival and outputting purposes allowing to preserve maximum of original sharpness though just enough touch of unsharp mask to bring back the sharpness lost in the process of scanning. What I missed is the last point of this process: using Selection menu to select the Edge Mask created in the duplicated image copy to apply it to the original image. I found impossible to do Load Selection into the original image window without making Save Selection (choosing All option) prior to that (in Edge Mask image window). The Save Selection step it missing in his instructions, perhaps because it might seem obvious to slightly more experienced PS user then me. I would appreciate if someone here could clarify this point for me. The link to the article is: http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12189.html Regards, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Anthony wrote: In theory you can also downsample in one step and unsharp mask once, but then you must calculate the proper radius based on the number of pixels lost and unsharp mask up front. For example, if you downsample in one step of 500%, you'd use a radius of 4.9 pixels or so. I don't do it this way so I'm not sure how it turns out (it's easier to unsharp mask in steps afterwards, and look at the partial results after each step), but you can always try it. Anthony, Thanks for sharing this with us. Up to now, I've just been sharpening the final down sampled image. Your method of (over) sharpening before each reduction in size certainly seems to work better. Maybe I have missed it in an earlier post but, if you are using your normal technique of halving the image size, what are the unsharp mask settings you use as a default? Thanks, Al Bond Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Al writes: Maybe I have missed it in an earlier post but, if you are using your normal technique of halving the image size, what are the unsharp mask settings you use as a default? Strength of 98, radius of 0.7, threshold of 2. Of course, this is a highly subjective setting. I do note that very small images usually require less unsharp masking than very large images to get visually similar results, but since the distinctions are small, I usually use this one setting for everything. If a small image looks too pixellated after the last downsample and unsharp masking, I undo the unsharp masking. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Strength of 98, radius of 0.7, threshold of 2. Of course, this is a highly subjective setting. I do note that very small images usually require less unsharp masking than very large images to get visually similar results, but since the distinctions are small, I usually use this one setting for everything. I find that the first sharpening, that applied to the image from the scanner, needs much larger strength and radius values than the second and later sharpenings. Do you turn on sharpening in the scanner? (I haven't tried that yet, since my experience with in-camera sharpening (consumer dcams) is that it has too low threshold setting and aggravates noise something fierce, but maybe scanner sharpening isn't so obnoxious...) David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
I use strength 100, radius 1, threshold 1 for the Epson 2450 and next for every halving of image size (linearly) 25 to 30 works well. If your scanner adds its own sharpening, the initial value should be less for strength. The fine detail just seems to bubble up through the various downsizings. Warren --- David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Strength of 98, radius of 0.7, threshold of 2. Of course, this is a highly subjective setting. I do note that very small images usually require less unsharp masking than very large images to get visually similar results, but since the distinctions are small, I usually use this one setting for everything. I find that the first sharpening, that applied to the image from the scanner, needs much larger strength and radius values than the second and later sharpenings. Do you turn on sharpening in the scanner? (I haven't tried that yet, since my experience with in-camera sharpening (consumer dcams) is that it has too low threshold setting and aggravates noise something fierce, but maybe scanner sharpening isn't so obnoxious...) David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body __ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
I find that the first sharpening, that applied to the image from the scanner, needs much larger strength and radius values than the second and later sharpenings. Do you turn on sharpening in the scanner? No, I don't. You never know when you'll need an image _without_ sharpening (remember, sharpening degrades image quality). I don't see much change in the initial sharpening, either, unless it's a really good scan (read: a scan of an image shot on a tripod, on slow film, that really does show detail in individual pixels). Subsequent 2x downsamples always show visible improvement when sharpened, though. I haven't tried that yet, since my experience with in-camera sharpening (consumer dcams) is that it has too low threshold setting and aggravates noise something fierce, but maybe scanner sharpening isn't so obnoxious...) I don't like to sharpen images even before I get them into Photoshop. I prefer that the raw image be free of sharpening, so that I get as much quality as possible in that raw image. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Maris writes: Brian said the file size was reduced, so there was apparently resampliing (downsampling). Or the amount of information in the file did not increase. In any case, if one proceeds as he describes (changing the dimension of the image to 11 inches in Photoshop), the results are as I describe--I tested it to be sure; perhaps he left something out in his description. Your hypothetical of entering 11 inches in the new dimension, with the resampling box checked or unchecked, would not result in PS computing 11 inches x 4000 ppi. PS would reduce the ppi proportionately in either case. Try it. If you simply enter a new dimension in inches, the size in pixels will increase or decrease as required to produce that dimension ... at 4000 ppi. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
I tried it. Leaving the Resample box checked does result in no change the ppi Resolution. Unchecking the Resample box does result in a change in Resolution. Maris - Original Message - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 7:03 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening Maris writes: [snipped] Your hypothetical of entering 11 inches in the new dimension, with the resampling box checked or unchecked, would not result in PS computing 11 inches x 4000 ppi. PS would reduce the ppi proportionately in either case. Try it. If you simply enter a new dimension in inches, the size in pixels will increase or decrease as required to produce that dimension ... at 4000 ppi. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
Maris, As this post came through, I am unsure which is your statement and which is the quoted statement you are responding to; but I assume it is the second one. I agree entirely with it, although I typically tend to refer to resolution in this situation as effective resolution rather than as resolution, since it is the resolution change is apparently a result of the resizing without resampling rather than as a result of any resampling per se. If you take a 8x10 at 300 dpi with the resampling box unchecked and resize it to 4x5 with the unchecked resampling box, you will get an effective resolution of 600 dpi; whereas if you take the same 8x10 at 300 dpi with an unchecked reampling box and increase its size to 16x20 with anu unchecked resampling box, the effective resolution will be 150dpi. On the other hand, if you check the box in each instance and leave the resolution setting at 300, the actual resolution of the resulting resized images will remain the same at 300 dpi, although that 300 dpi will not be an optically resolved dpi but one produced via resampling upward or downward. The nature of the resolution has changed although the numbers may not have in the checked resample box instances; whereas, in the unchecked sample box instnaces the level of actual optical resolution remains the same but the effective resolution changes due to contraction or expansion of the lineal dimensions upon with the dots per inch are based rather than a change in the number of dots per inch per se. I offer this in hopes of adding some clarity to the discussion in a linguistic fashion rather than in a substantive one. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka Sr. Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 8:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening I tried it. Leaving the Resample box checked does result in no change the ppi Resolution. Unchecking the Resample box does result in a change in Resolution. Maris Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
It may produce better results--I don't know, not having compared. However, I do know that upsampling in repeated small increments works a bit better than one large upsampling step. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Robert Meier Then Image - Image Size - change the resolution to 1/2 of the Resolution shown, readjust the Document Size to what you want, click OK. It will be downsampled by 1/2. Continue doing this until the Resolution is what you desire. Excuse my ignorance but what is the logic doing it this way instead of resample it directly to the resolution you want? Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Brian writes: If I scan a 35 mm slide or negative at 4000 dpi in a Nikon Coolscan 4000 and I want to make a print in Photoshop, I alter the long dimension to 11 inches (the short dimension ends up at whatever to retain the proper dimensions). Since this usually ends up in a file size that is smaller than what it was originally, does this mean the image will be downsampled? No. By default, when you enter a dimension in the Image Size dialog box, Photoshop will resample the image to match the dimensions you've given. In the case of pixels, PS simply resamples up or down to match the new pixel dimensions. In the case of a physical dimension like 11 inches (entered in the Print Size portion of the dialog), however, PS resamples up or down to match the new physical dimension _after_ calculating the number of pixels required by multiplying the physical dimension by the number of pixels per inch. When you open a scan from the Coolscan, the ppi is set to 4000 (the scanner's resolution); and the number of pixels in the image corresponds to the number of pixels in a 35mm frame scanned at 4000 ppi, or about 5669x3779 pixels. If you now enter just 11 inches as the new dimension in the resizing dialog, Photoshop will compute 11 inches x 4000 ppi = 44000 pixels, and will upsample the image to this size. In general, this is not what you want. You should _first_ uncheck the Resample box in the dialog, then enter the new ppi you want for your print size, then recheck the box and enter the print size you want. For example, you could first change the ppi to 300 (if that's what you want on the final print), then enter the desired print size. With a ppi of 300 and a print size of 11 inches, PS will _downsample_ from the size of the 4000 ppi scan (because fewer pixels are required). If the answer is yes then how do I downsample in powers of 2? Change pixels to percent in the upper portion of the Image Size dialog box and enter 50 (percent). ... do I go 4000 to 2000 to 1000 to 500 to 360, sharpening at each step as you suggest? That's what I do (except I'd skip it on the last downsample, because the step from 500 to 360 is too small and sharpening at that point might look too messy--sometimes I try it both ways on the last step and pick what looks best). In theory you can also downsample in one step and unsharp mask once, but then you must calculate the proper radius based on the number of pixels lost and unsharp mask up front. For example, if you downsample in one step of 500%, you'd use a radius of 4.9 pixels or so. I don't do it this way so I'm not sure how it turns out (it's easier to unsharp mask in steps afterwards, and look at the partial results after each step), but you can always try it. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Robert writes: Excuse my ignorance but what is the logic doing it this way instead of resample it directly to the resolution you want? It seems to give a better final result, as opposed to one single large downsampling step, although I have not been able to rigorously verify this. If you downsample from 1000 pixels to 10, for example, you get a blur, even after sharpening. If you downsample in multiple steps of no more than 1/2 at a time, the result at the end seems a lot more recognizable. I think this is because steps larger than 1/2 tend to lose information from intermediate pixels. If you downsample in steps and unsharp mask each time, details tend to leave traces in adjacent pixels that survive the next downsampling step. The result is a final image that contains more pixels that resemble important details of the original. It's actually probably less accurate than a single-step downsampling, but to the eye, it looks more like the original, because key details are more likely to survive (in exaggerated form, but that's what you need to make them obvious). Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In theory you can also downsample in one step and unsharp mask once, but then you must calculate the proper radius based on the number of pixels lost and unsharp mask up front. For example, if you downsample in one step of 500%, you'd use a radius of 4.9 pixels or so. I don't do it this way so I'm not sure how it turns out (it's easier to unsharp mask in steps afterwards, and look at the partial results after each step), but you can always try it. Just to clarify here: the sharpening with radius of 4.9 pixels or so is applied _before_ downsampling by 500%, obviously. Right? As I understand it, there should be N + 1 sharpening operations for N downsampling opertions. In some sense, the first N sharpening operations have a different purpose than the last: they're to make sure the downsampling retains the detail (and contrast) you want. The last sharpening is to make the final image look good. As usual, correct me if I'm wrong. (So far, I've been quite lazy, and simply let Qimage do the resampling for printing. Thus I simply create an image file at the native resolution of the scanner/camera, adjust and sharpen to taste, and let Qimage print it.) David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
David writes: Just to clarify here: the sharpening with radius of 4.9 pixels or so is applied _before_ downsampling by 500%, obviously. Right? Yes, it would have to be, otherwise the information it needs would be gone. However, I haven't actually done this, so I'm not sure of the details. It seems that, from a mathematical standpoint, there should be a one-step equivalent of the multiple-step process that I use, but I've always been too lazy to try to figure it out. Additionally, I suspect that any one-step process would require some degree of calculation for each image and each downsample ratio, and I'm not really in the mood to do that each time I downsample. The multiple-step process is easier and seems to give the same results. As I understand it, there should be N + 1 sharpening operations for N downsampling opertions. The other way around: N-1 unsharp masks for N downsamples, unless the last downsample is very close to 2x itself (try it both ways and pick whichever looks better for the last step). In some sense, the first N sharpening operations have a different purpose than the last: they're to make sure the downsampling retains the detail (and contrast) you want. Yes. By unsharp masking after each downsample, you exaggerate detail. The traces of this exaggeration survive into the next step. The net result after several steps is that details that normally would have gone away in the downsampling still have left tiny traces in the final image. Technically, the image is flawed because of this, because the details are exaggerated far more than would be mathematically appropriate--but since the image is being seen by human eyes, this exaggerated detail is exactly what is needed to give an impression of greater detail and sharpness. The last sharpening is to make the final image look good. Exactly. The intermediate unsharp masks just help to carry important detail through the process; only the last unsharp mask is purely aesthetic. Or at least that is my opinion; like I said, I've not tried to come up with a mathematical proof. Try downsampling through a 100:1 ratio in steps, and then in one pass, and you'll see that doing it in steps gives you a final result that looks like a tiny, sharp version of the original, whereas a single step just produces a blur. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Brian said the file size was reduced, so there was apparently resampliing (downsampling). Your hypothetical of entering 11 inches in the new dimension, with the resampling box checked or unchecked, would not result in PS computing 11 inches x 4000 ppi. PS would reduce the ppi proportionately in either case. Try it. Maris - Original Message - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 2:32 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening Brian writes: If I scan a 35 mm slide or negative at 4000 dpi in a Nikon Coolscan 4000 and I want to make a print in Photoshop, I alter the long dimension to 11 inches (the short dimension ends up at whatever to retain the proper dimensions). Since this usually ends up in a file size that is smaller than what it was originally, does this mean the image will be downsampled? No. By default, when you enter a dimension in the Image Size dialog box, Photoshop will resample the image to match the dimensions you've given. In the case of pixels, PS simply resamples up or down to match the new pixel dimensions. In the case of a physical dimension like 11 inches (entered in the Print Size portion of the dialog), however, PS resamples up or down to match the new physical dimension _after_ calculating the number of pixels required by multiplying the physical dimension by the number of pixels per inch. When you open a scan from the Coolscan, the ppi is set to 4000 (the scanner's resolution); and the number of pixels in the image corresponds to the number of pixels in a 35mm frame scanned at 4000 ppi, or about 5669x3779 pixels. If you now enter just 11 inches as the new dimension in the resizing dialog, Photoshop will compute 11 inches x 4000 ppi = 44000 pixels, and will upsample the image to this size. In general, this is not what you want. [remainder snipped] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Sharpening will not recover lost detail. It only creates an illusion of sharpness, and it is very easy to overdo, so beware. - Original Message - From: Alex Zabrovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 23:53 Subject: [filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening Thanks, will look at it. The sharpening I meant originally is intended to be implied on GEMed images with high setting such as 3 and 4, since there is obvious sharpness impact at this GEM settings. Otherwise, I don't sharpen either. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka Sr. Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 6:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening Most people don't sharpen immediately after the scan (though some have suggested an immediate MINOR sharpening to remove artifacts introduced by the scanning process), so at 2900 dpi and 1000 dpi don't sharpen. When you are done with the image and it's ready for print or the web, then you sharpen, and at that point it depends on the resolution of the image and it's content. I know of no set rules or guidelines. Bruce Fraser has some excellent articles on sharpening at http://www.creativepro.com/author/home/0,1819,40,00.html Maris - Original Message - From: Alex Zabrovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 11:55 AM Subject: [filmscanners] PS sharpening Hi. I would be interested to know how people use Unsharp Mask in PS to make the images sharper, especially following high settings of GEM (produced by Nikon IV ED) I'm still trying to establish the range of best Unsharp Mask settings for different cases (scenic, portraiture and other kinds). Let's assume the scanning resolution is 2900 dpi and 1000 dpi. Regards, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Yes it will be downsampled. To downsample by 2, one method would be to change the dimensions of the image to what you want, but UNCHECK Resample Image Click OK. This will change the resolution but will not be downsampled yet. Then Image - Image Size - change the resolution to 1/2 of the Resolution shown, readjust the Document Size to what you want, click OK. It will be downsampled by 1/2. Continue doing this until the Resolution is what you desire. Maris - Original Message - From: Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 4:49 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening Anthony, I would like to ask you a question about the proper interpretation of downsampling. If I scan a 35 mm slide or negative at 4000 dpi in a Nikon Coolscan 4000 and I want to make a print in Photoshop, I alter the long dimension to 11 inches (the short dimension ends up at whatever to retain the proper dimensions). Since this usually ends up in a file size that is smaller than what it was originally, does this mean the image will be downsampled? If the answer is yes then how do I downsample in powers of 2? do I go 4000 to 2000 to 1000 to 500 to 360, sharpening at each step as you suggest? [remainder snipped] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then Image - Image Size - change the resolution to 1/2 of the Resolution shown, readjust the Document Size to what you want, click OK. It will be downsampled by 1/2. Continue doing this until the Resolution is what you desire. Excuse my ignorance but what is the logic doing it this way instead of resample it directly to the resolution you want? Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
