Basic dpi question (art archiving)

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

(Posting this to alt.comp.periphs.dcameras and alt.graphics.photoshop
in the desire to cover more bases and in the hope that the overlap
isn't too severe.)

I suspect this is a Digital Camera 101-type question, but perhaps
there's more than I've so far been able to search on the web...

I have a substantial art collection, and many of the pieces are
paintings way larger than the 11x17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In
earlier days, I'd have taken these to a pro photographer who'd shoot
them onto 4x5 film, which I could then scan. This is no longer an
option for me, so I'm wondering - are there any digital cameras that
would serve this purpose? It seems that all the dcameras I know of
image at 72 dpi; yes, I can set the quality setting to TIFF and get a
really large file (which I could then size up to 300 dpi in Photoshop)
but to me that defeats the archival purpose - to have as accurate a
file of the artwork as possible.

Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi? The only other
solution I've found is to consider a sheet-fed or roll scanner, and I'd
like to exhaust all other possibilities before going that route.

Thanks in advance!

Richard Pini

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:28:04 -0400, Richard Pini <rpini@elfquest.com>
scribbled:

>Richard Pini

How's Wendy?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

"Richard Pini" <rpini@elfquest.com> wrote in message
news:030920041028048509%rpini@elfquest.com...
> (Posting this to alt.comp.periphs.dcameras and alt.graphics.photoshop
> in the desire to cover more bases and in the hope that the overlap
> isn't too severe.)
>
> I suspect this is a Digital Camera 101-type question, but perhaps
> there's more than I've so far been able to search on the web...
>
> I have a substantial art collection, and many of the pieces are
> paintings way larger than the 11x17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In
> earlier days, I'd have taken these to a pro photographer who'd shoot
> them onto 4x5 film, which I could then scan. This is no longer an
> option for me, so I'm wondering - are there any digital cameras that
> would serve this purpose? It seems that all the dcameras I know of
> image at 72 dpi; yes, I can set the quality setting to TIFF and get a
> really large file (which I could then size up to 300 dpi in Photoshop)
> but to me that defeats the archival purpose - to have as accurate a
> file of the artwork as possible.
>
> Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi? The only other
> solution I've found is to consider a sheet-fed or roll scanner, and I'd
> like to exhaust all other possibilities before going that route.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Richard Pini

The 72 dpi setting in digital cameras is not an actual dpi rating of the
image. It is an arbitrary value.

The 72 dpi is easy to change in any photo editing software, such as
Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro. Also when printing the image.

The important specification of the image is the dimensions in pixels. The
more pixels the higher the resolution of the image.

At what resolution do you scan the 4 X 5 film at to get the image you want?

The more megapixels the camera is capable of, the more resolution you have
to print large prints.

For large art pieces, I would only consider cameras that are at least 5
Megapixels with manual controls and a tripod mount.

Digital cameras are getting very good, but they do not compare to a 4" X 5"
view camera.

To photograph art with no glare or shadows, requires a very good studio
setup.
Depending on the size of the art, a large room for the lights and camera.

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

aren't there medium format cameras with a digital back anyway?

Articus

"CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:sM%Zc.16610$9r5.4847@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> "Richard Pini" <rpini@elfquest.com> wrote in message
> news:030920041028048509%rpini@elfquest.com...
>> (Posting this to alt.comp.periphs.dcameras and alt.graphics.photoshop
>> in the desire to cover more bases and in the hope that the overlap
>> isn't too severe.)
>>
>> I suspect this is a Digital Camera 101-type question, but perhaps
>> there's more than I've so far been able to search on the web...
>>
>> I have a substantial art collection, and many of the pieces are
>> paintings way larger than the 11x17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In
>> earlier days, I'd have taken these to a pro photographer who'd shoot
>> them onto 4x5 film, which I could then scan. This is no longer an
>> option for me, so I'm wondering - are there any digital cameras that
>> would serve this purpose? It seems that all the dcameras I know of
>> image at 72 dpi; yes, I can set the quality setting to TIFF and get a
>> really large file (which I could then size up to 300 dpi in Photoshop)
>> but to me that defeats the archival purpose - to have as accurate a
>> file of the artwork as possible.
>>
>> Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi? The only other
>> solution I've found is to consider a sheet-fed or roll scanner, and I'd
>> like to exhaust all other possibilities before going that route.
>>
>> Thanks in advance!
>>
>> Richard Pini
>
> The 72 dpi setting in digital cameras is not an actual dpi rating of the
> image. It is an arbitrary value.
>
> The 72 dpi is easy to change in any photo editing software, such as
> Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro. Also when printing the image.
>
> The important specification of the image is the dimensions in pixels. The
> more pixels the higher the resolution of the image.
>
> At what resolution do you scan the 4 X 5 film at to get the image you
> want?
>
> The more megapixels the camera is capable of, the more resolution you have
> to print large prints.
>
> For large art pieces, I would only consider cameras that are at least 5
> Megapixels with manual controls and a tripod mount.
>
> Digital cameras are getting very good, but they do not compare to a 4" X
> 5" view camera.
>
> To photograph art with no glare or shadows, requires a very good studio
> setup.
> Depending on the size of the art, a large room for the lights and camera.
>
> --
> CSM1
> http://www.carlmcmillan.com
> --
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

"Articus Drools" <spoofed@spooked.com> wrote in message
news:Ab0_c.357$r17.313@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> aren't there medium format cameras with a digital back anyway?
>
> Articus
>
ps - one of the side effects of the rush towards digital cameras is that
35mm cameras are going for a song

have a look at Canon SLR's

I estimate an SLR with good lens will probably do the trick

alternatively = camera hire?

Articus

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Richard Pini <rpini@elfquest.com> wrote:

> I have a substantial art collection, and many of the pieces are
> paintings way larger than the 11x17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In
> earlier days, I'd have taken these to a pro photographer who'd shoot
> them onto 4x5 film, which I could then scan. This is no longer an
> option for me, so I'm wondering - are there any digital cameras that
> would serve this purpose? It seems that all the dcameras I know of
> image at 72 dpi; yes, I can set the quality setting to TIFF and get a
> really large file (which I could then size up to 300 dpi in Photoshop)
> but to me that defeats the archival purpose - to have as accurate a
> file of the artwork as possible.
>
> Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi? The only other
> solution I've found is to consider a sheet-fed or roll scanner, and I'd
> like to exhaust all other possibilities before going that route.

It is clear that you do not understand the concept of resolution. A
digital camera shoots files of certain pixel dimensions, for example
2000 x 3000 pixels. Whether that would be 2000 x 3000 pixels @ 72 dpi or
2000 x 3000 pixels @ 300 dpi is totally irrelevant, because both are
still 2000 x 3000 pixels, so the files are identical. Forget dpi, it's
the number of pixels, the quality of the lens, and the imaging algoritms
that counts. dpi is only a setting for printing, nothing else.


--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:28:04 -0400, Richard Pini <rpini@elfquest.com>
wrote:

>(Posting this to alt.comp.periphs.dcameras and alt.graphics.photoshop
>in the desire to cover more bases and in the hope that the overlap
>isn't too severe.)
>
>I suspect this is a Digital Camera 101-type question, but perhaps
>there's more than I've so far been able to search on the web...


These 2 articles may help you get some background info:

http://www.ransen.com/Articles/MegaPixels/default.htm

http://www.ransen.com/Articles/DPI/Default.htm


Unique and easy to use graphics programs
http://www.ransen.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Thanks to all who replied. I actually do (very sort of) understand the
pixels vs. dpi thing, though sometimes putting it into words gets
dicey.

Wendy's fine, thank you.

To answer the question about the 4x5 film image, if the original piece
of art was, say 16x20 inches, and if I could scan it directly using a
minimum of 300 dpi, then I understand (I think) the scan would end up
as a 4800x6000 pixel file. To extract that from the 4x5 film image, I'd
have to scan that at 1200 dpi. (Assuming, of course, that the film
image contained enough detail, fine enough grain, to make that worth
doing.)

That would be a close to 30 megapixel camera, wouldn't it...

 

[Malcolm]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

> Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi?

Don't think dpi, think pixels. Digital cameras work in pixels.

Lets say that I set my digital camera to 1600 x 1200 pixels.

If I now print 6 inch x 4.5 inch:

The resolution will be
1600 / 6 = 266 dpi
x 1200 / 4.5 = 266 dpi

And so on.
ie dpi depends on print size, not the camera.

Malcolm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Richard Pini <rpini@elfquest.com> wrote:

> Thanks to all who replied.

Oh crud! I just replied because i did not see the other posts - my
newsreader filtered them.

> That would be a close to 30 megapixel camera, wouldn't it...

Or, try a panel scanner at 4800 Dpi ... they look nifty

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:36:00 GMT, "Articus Drools"
<spoofed@spooked.com> wrote:

>aren't there medium format cameras with a digital back anyway?
>
There are - if you have a *very* understanding bank manager ;-)

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Richard Pini wrote:
[re scanning paintings]

If you have a multi-megapixel camera, experiment with photographing your
images. This will be totally adequate for most purposes. If you want
higher resolution, split the painting into sections and assemble them as you
would a panorama or mosaic. Use filtered daylight lighting if possible,
second best is diffuse electronic flash, and be cautious about photographing
under tungsten light, which often yields a noisy blue channel.

On another tack, you may find a frame scanner will do the trick. At $500,
HP's is not that expensive. Keep in mind that with this, or any scanner
there may be a substantial color shift due to metamerism of the paint
pigments and the cold fluorescent technology used by most of these scanners.

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/top/story/0,4136,67384,00.html

--

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Richard Pini <rpini@elfquest.com> writes:
> To answer the question about the 4x5 film image, if the original
> piece of art was, say 16x20 inches, and if I could scan it directly
> using a minimum of 300 dpi, then I understand (I think) the scan
> would end up as a 4800x6000 pixel file. To extract that from the 4x5
> film image, I'd have to scan that at 1200 dpi. (Assuming, of course,
> that the film image contained enough detail, fine enough grain, to
> make that worth doing.)
>
> That would be a close to 30 megapixel camera, wouldn't it...

Your arithmetic is correct, but there is more to this than just
megapixels.

Just how many megapixels you need to have in a digital camera to match
the quality of a good MF photograph is frequently discussed and
contested in the newsgroup rec.photo.digital and various boards.
Some say 8 Mpx, some say 14 Mpx, some say 30 Mpx (and a gentleman
named Steve Giovanella posting under various aliases say 3.43 Mpx
if its Sigma megapixels). I wouldn't take Steve Giovanella too
serious - but on the other hand I don't think you'll need as much
as 30 Mpx to match quality MF film. To me 14 Mpx looks about
correct - but as always: YMMV.

Film has grains, and to compensate for the grains you need to
oversample. To make quality scans from film, you therefore end
up with huge files. Low ISO digital is smooth, so you get more
resolution with fewer megapixels than you do with film scans.

If you really care about having quality photographs of your paintings,
and money is no object, what you should use a 4x5 or a view camera
with a *scanning back*. These, if done competently, blow anything
else (film and digital) out of water.

Take a look at:
http://www.digitaloutput.net/back%20edit/edittopic2e.html
http://www.betterlight.com/
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
«To live outside the law, you must be honest.» (Bob Dylan)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> writes:
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:36:00 GMT, "Articus Drools"

>> aren't there medium format cameras with a digital back anyway?

> There are - if you have a *very* understanding bank manager ;-)

For reproducing fine art - and anything else that doesn't
move - the way to do it is with a large format camera and
a scanning back. The difficult part is to explain to
your bank manager what a «scanning back» is.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
«To live outside the law, you must be honest.» (Bob Dylan)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 16:45:24 +0200, nomail@please.invalid (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

>Richard Pini <rpini@elfquest.com> wrote:
>
>> I have a substantial art collection, and many of the pieces are
>> paintings way larger than the 11x17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In
>> earlier days, I'd have taken these to a pro photographer who'd shoot
>> them onto 4x5 film, which I could then scan. This is no longer an
>> option for me, so I'm wondering - are there any digital cameras that
>> would serve this purpose? It seems that all the dcameras I know of
>> image at 72 dpi; yes, I can set the quality setting to TIFF and get a
>> really large file (which I could then size up to 300 dpi in Photoshop)
>> but to me that defeats the archival purpose - to have as accurate a
>> file of the artwork as possible.
>>
>> Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi? The only other
>> solution I've found is to consider a sheet-fed or roll scanner, and I'd
>> like to exhaust all other possibilities before going that route.
>
>It is clear that you do not understand the concept of resolution. A
>digital camera shoots files of certain pixel dimensions, for example
>2000 x 3000 pixels. Whether that would be 2000 x 3000 pixels @ 72 dpi or
>2000 x 3000 pixels @ 300 dpi is totally irrelevant, because both are
>still 2000 x 3000 pixels, so the files are identical. Forget dpi, it's
>the number of pixels, the quality of the lens, and the imaging algoritms
>that counts. dpi is only a setting for printing, nothing else.


Someone said, a few postings back, that only newbies is still visiting
this ng. I am totaly new to this ng (still not sure whether I will
stay) but not a newbie either to cameras or ps. Someone (think it was
the same author) also ask the reader to close the door if he/she was
the last to leave,
It is because of people like you, Johan. It is also 'cause of people
like you that I am not sure if I want to stay.

What have you done wrong, you ask? You could have given the
same answer without your first (full of yourself!) sentence.
(What you have said here, still does not mean that you are so clever,
'cause that is general knowledge.)

Maybe, you are a helpfull guy. Maybe I am attacking someone who is a
value to this group. If yes, sorry therefor. As already said, I am
new to this group. And maybe, you are on of those 'in love with
yourself' humanbeings blowing there own hooters on all newsgroups.

Al this lecture because of your first sentence? Yes, never say
unnecessary things. (Maybe I have said unnecessary things,
but on the other hand, I have read a few postings, and only maybe it
is necessary

Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

This is common etiquette for a newsgroup and considered almost polite in
most cases. I don't see the derogatory sense in the statement.

If you use Usenet Groups or any Internet group you better get a **thicker
skin** or every group you visit will bog down with garbage complaining about
people, complaining about complaining, and complaining about people
complaining about people complaining about people complaining. I have seen
it happen and go on for years. One argument and fight has resulted in court
appearances, a person's death and went from 1996 in one group through many
different groups and continued until this year. Do you see my point? If you
don't believe this go into alt.support.tinnitus and ask where Nagliar went
to. The waves may cool after a week or two.

Best of luck and welcome.

"Dave Du Plessis" <d@d.co.za> wrote in message
news:041jj0lj2m985bdk3v4tb31js7ddrc88id@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 16:45:24 +0200, nomail@please.invalid (Johan W.
> Elzenga) wrote:
>
> >Richard Pini <rpini@elfquest.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I have a substantial art collection, and many of the pieces are
> >> paintings way larger than the 11x17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In
> >> earlier days, I'd have taken these to a pro photographer who'd shoot
> >> them onto 4x5 film, which I could then scan. This is no longer an
> >> option for me, so I'm wondering - are there any digital cameras that
> >> would serve this purpose? It seems that all the dcameras I know of
> >> image at 72 dpi; yes, I can set the quality setting to TIFF and get a
> >> really large file (which I could then size up to 300 dpi in Photoshop)
> >> but to me that defeats the archival purpose - to have as accurate a
> >> file of the artwork as possible.
> >>
> >> Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi? The only other
> >> solution I've found is to consider a sheet-fed or roll scanner, and I'd
> >> like to exhaust all other possibilities before going that route.
> >
> >It is clear that you do not understand the concept of resolution. A
> >digital camera shoots files of certain pixel dimensions, for example
> >2000 x 3000 pixels. Whether that would be 2000 x 3000 pixels @ 72 dpi or
> >2000 x 3000 pixels @ 300 dpi is totally irrelevant, because both are
> >still 2000 x 3000 pixels, so the files are identical. Forget dpi, it's
> >the number of pixels, the quality of the lens, and the imaging algoritms
> >that counts. dpi is only a setting for printing, nothing else.
>
>
> Someone said, a few postings back, that only newbies is still visiting
> this ng. I am totaly new to this ng (still not sure whether I will
> stay) but not a newbie either to cameras or ps. Someone (think it was
> the same author) also ask the reader to close the door if he/she was
> the last to leave,
> It is because of people like you, Johan. It is also 'cause of people
> like you that I am not sure if I want to stay.
>
> What have you done wrong, you ask? You could have given the
> same answer without your first (full of yourself!) sentence.
> (What you have said here, still does not mean that you are so clever,
> 'cause that is general knowledge.)
>
> Maybe, you are a helpfull guy. Maybe I am attacking someone who is a
> value to this group. If yes, sorry therefor. As already said, I am
> new to this group. And maybe, you are on of those 'in love with
> yourself' humanbeings blowing there own hooters on all newsgroups.
>
> Al this lecture because of your first sentence? Yes, never say
> unnecessary things. (Maybe I have said unnecessary things,
> but on the other hand, I have read a few postings, and only maybe it
> is necessary
>
> Dave
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Dear Bank Manager

I have come here today oh greatly beloved to obtain a scanning back

Fear not - my own back really is OK I merely seek to take high class high
quality images of my personal art gallery and ...

No, Stop there! Personal art collection?

Is it for insurance purposes? See your accountant, here's the dosh. Take
it, all of it ..

BTW can you sell the images to authors and publishers?

No!, really? No!

OK forget what I said - give me the money back and go forth and multiply?

Articus


"Gisle Hannemyr" <gisle+njus@ifi.uio.no> wrote in message
news:q5fz5yqvhk.fsf@kaksi.ifi.uio.no...
> Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> writes:
>> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:36:00 GMT, "Articus Drools"
>
>>> aren't there medium format cameras with a digital back anyway?
>
>> There are - if you have a *very* understanding bank manager ;-)
>
> For reproducing fine art - and anything else that doesn't
> move - the way to do it is with a large format camera and
> a scanning back. The difficult part is to explain to
> your bank manager what a «scanning back» is.
> --
> - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
> ========================================================================
> «To live outside the law, you must be honest.» (Bob Dylan)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

"Richard Pini" <rpini@elfquest.com> wrote in message
news:030920041953114334%rpini@elfquest.com...
> Thanks to all who replied. I actually do (very sort of) understand the
> pixels vs. dpi thing, though sometimes putting it into words gets
> dicey.
>
> Wendy's fine, thank you.
>
> To answer the question about the 4x5 film image, if the original piece
> of art was, say 16x20 inches, and if I could scan it directly using a
> minimum of 300 dpi, then I understand (I think) the scan would end up
> as a 4800x6000 pixel file. To extract that from the 4x5 film image, I'd
> have to scan that at 1200 dpi. (Assuming, of course, that the film
> image contained enough detail, fine enough grain, to make that worth
> doing.)
>
> That would be a close to 30 megapixel camera, wouldn't it...

4800 X 6000 = 28,800,000 Pixels or 28.8 Megapixels.
So yeah, 30 Megapixels.

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Richard... A lot of confusion, postulating replies etc. Maybe this will
help.
72 DPI is the theoretical dpi of a computer monitor. When you open an image
in Photoshop it defaults to 72 DPI. Photoshop's default print resolution is
300 DPI. Both can be changed but while they exist, a 72 DPI image will have
large linear dimensions but print dimensions will be much smaller. I have
the feeling you may be confusing some of these settings in your request for
a 72 DPI camera.

The real problem is that dots and pixels have no linear measurement. You can
have as many in a unit of linear measurement as you want and that (linear)
measurement will be unchanged but the clarity of an image which fits in it
will alter (improve) as the number of pixels or dots increase.

As a rule of thumb (pretty rough but accurate) you need at least 180 DPI
(pixels or dots are OK) for a good quality inkjet photo printer to reproduce
a faithful picture. Perhaps 300 dpi for a continuous tone printer as used in
photo labs. If you can post the dimensions you wish to print at, I'm sure
there are many contributors who will offer you advise as to the camera you
need to be able to obtain that size print from a digital camera. E-mail me
privately if you wish to avoid the insulting poster(s).

I not long ago did a shoot of an art collection for insurance. Having due
regard for reflections and perspective, I am sure you can photograph your
art and obtain quality photo prints with a moderate DSLR camera. Which one
is best for your application will depend on the size you wish to output and
the quality you expect of that output.

I use Canon 10D and Mamiya medium format cameras and HP Designjet photo
printers. I frequently photograph watercolours for a client. She exhibits
her work and phones me with orders which I print using watercolour paper and
the results are indistinguishable from the original to anyone but the
artist. Sometimes even she is fooled if we frame and glaze the prints!

Oil paintings may not reproduce so accurately due to the texture of the
paint but certainly I would have no hesitation in taking on a job like
yours. files from a 10D camera can be interpolated up to produce stunning
prints 20" x 30". There are higher spec camera if you need larger prints.
Some of my posters are 24"x 36" from 10D images. I use the Mamiya gear if I
need larger output.
Hope this helps,
Ryadia.
-------------
"Richard Pini" <rpini@elfquest.com> wrote in message
news:030920041028048509%rpini@elfquest.com...
> (Posting this to alt.comp.periphs.dcameras and alt.graphics.photoshop
> in the desire to cover more bases and in the hope that the overlap
> isn't too severe.)
>
> I suspect this is a Digital Camera 101-type question, but perhaps
> there's more than I've so far been able to search on the web...
>
> I have a substantial art collection, and many of the pieces are
> paintings way larger than the 11x17 I can fit on my flatbed scanner. In
> earlier days, I'd have taken these to a pro photographer who'd shoot
> them onto 4x5 film, which I could then scan. This is no longer an
> option for me, so I'm wondering - are there any digital cameras that
> would serve this purpose? It seems that all the dcameras I know of
> image at 72 dpi; yes, I can set the quality setting to TIFF and get a
> really large file (which I could then size up to 300 dpi in Photoshop)
> but to me that defeats the archival purpose - to have as accurate a
> file of the artwork as possible.
>
> Art there digital cameras that image at >72 dpi? The only other
> solution I've found is to consider a sheet-fed or roll scanner, and I'd
> like to exhaust all other possibilities before going that route.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Richard Pini

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:45:33 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
wrote:

>This is common etiquette for a newsgroup and considered almost polite in
>most cases. I don't see the derogatory sense in the statement.
>
>If you use Usenet Groups or any Internet group you better get a **thicker
>skin** or every group you visit will bog down with garbage complaining about
>people, complaining about complaining, and complaining about people
>complaining about people complaining about people complaining. I have seen
>it happen and go on for years. One argument and fight has resulted in court
>appearances, a person's death and went from 1996 in one group through many
>different groups and continued until this year. Do you see my point? If you
>don't believe this go into alt.support.tinnitus and ask where Nagliar went
>to. The waves may cool after a week or two.
>
>Best of luck and welcome.
>


True, Gymmy (or is it Bob it is true. Probably I spoke to fast,
because I am dealing with a newsgroup where the people
are permanantly in a boxing ring. But I see this is, like you said,
a newsgroup standard.
And I have been on Johan's homepage, and do apologize;
he seem to be quit experienced. Sorry Johan and thanks
for welcoming me, Bob.

Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 10:38:47 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr
<gisle+njus@ifi.uio.no> wrote:

>Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> writes:
>> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:36:00 GMT, "Articus Drools"
>
>>> aren't there medium format cameras with a digital back anyway?
>
>> There are - if you have a *very* understanding bank manager ;-)
>
>For reproducing fine art - and anything else that doesn't
>move - the way to do it is with a large format camera and
>a scanning back. The difficult part is to explain to
>your bank manager what a «scanning back» is.

LOL! very true.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 10:33:28 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr
<gisle+njus@ifi.uio.no> wrote:

>To me 14 Mpx looks about
>correct - but as always: YMMV.
>
In which case you'd be very interested in magazine article I read by a
Pro landscape photographer who found that once you took the image to
A3 size from a Kodak 14mp camera any areas that, on film, would have
been continuous tone, start breaking up. Unlike those from a 35mm SLR.
In other words, it's not as good as 35mm, let alone MF.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 10:33:28 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr
> <gisle+njus@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>
> >To me 14 Mpx looks about
> >correct - but as always: YMMV.
> >
> In which case you'd be very interested in magazine article I read by a
> Pro landscape photographer who found that once you took the image to
> A3 size from a Kodak 14mp camera any areas that, on film, would have
> been continuous tone, start breaking up. Unlike those from a 35mm SLR.
> In other words, it's not as good as 35mm, let alone MF.

Kodak does not use a low pass filter, so perhaps that can be expected
with this camera. It's not necessarily true for other cameras, though.
You can probably find at least as many articles (last year in the UK
magazine Professional Photographer for example) that say that Canon 1Ds
('only' 11 Mp) already beats 35mm hands down. I know that 'Luminous
Landscapes' tried (although his method of proving is point is doubtful
at the least) to prove that the Canon evens beats a Pentax 67.


--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

A Photoshop newsgroup is unlikely to yield any qualified information about
cameras or printers. Your query is about both.

The armithitic is all wrong, the information being provided is flawed, the
process suggested is inconsistent and the advise comes from people without
practical experience. Just the sort of research to present your bank manager
when you ask for the loan to buy a 30 Megapixel camera!

If the people telling you, you need a 30 Megapixel camera had ever taken a
photograph with a 4 megapixel DSLR and enlarged it to a size they all claim
cannot produce a quality image, they might find that it actually can be done
and it does indeed produce a quality image. The measurement should not be a
marketing Guru's dream (megapixels) but sensor size and image quality. Those
who have never seem my work, claim I must have a low quality requirement.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

I frequently print 24"x 36" photographs from a 10D Canon camera on a HP
Designjet 130 that are indistinguishable from an 8" x 10" print from a
non-interpolated image. www.fstoponline.com.au interpolate digital images to
huge sizes and retain fine detail in their prints on a daily basis with
their Lambda, continuous tone laser. Until I started making my own large
prints I used to have them print mine... Interpolated from 100 dpi files
which I produced from scanning MF negatives.
http://www.technoaussie.com/big_prints.htm

If 16"x20" @ 300 dpi is all you seek, a Canon 10D will do very nicely. Way,
way under 30 Megapixels! You can even use the rudimentry 'Bicubic'
interpolation supplied with Photoshop and get results to rival or equal
those you'd expect from a 4" x 5" film scan. Digital images have no grain.

It is an unfortunate fact of newsgroups that many who offer advise have no
practical experience. Their information is based on what someone else said,
wrote about or just 'invented' an entertaining story about. Those who
actually do have the experience are all too often howled down by self styled
"experts". No doubt there will be posts from .nl addresses disputing this
but then they have equal time in this forum too!

Ryadia
------------------------
"CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:FYo_c.15563$zB4.7879@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
> "Richard Pini" <rpini@elfquest.com> wrote in message
> news:030920041953114334%rpini@elfquest.com...
> > Thanks to all who replied. I actually do (very sort of) understand the
> > pixels vs. dpi thing, though sometimes putting it into words gets
> > dicey.
> >
> > Wendy's fine, thank you.
> >
> > To answer the question about the 4x5 film image, if the original piece
> > of art was, say 16x20 inches, and if I could scan it directly using a
> > minimum of 300 dpi, then I understand (I think) the scan would end up
> > as a 4800x6000 pixel file. To extract that from the 4x5 film image, I'd
> > have to scan that at 1200 dpi. (Assuming, of course, that the film
> > image contained enough detail, fine enough grain, to make that worth
> > doing.)
> >
> > That would be a close to 30 megapixel camera, wouldn't it...
>
> 4800 X 6000 = 28,800,000 Pixels or 28.8 Megapixels.
> So yeah, 30 Megapixels.
>
> --
> CSM1
> http://www.carlmcmillan.com
> --
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 14:07:28 +1000, "Ryadia"
<dont_spam_ryadia@hotmail.com> scribbled:

>It is an unfortunate fact of newsgroups that many who offer advise have no
>practical experience. Their information is based on what someone else said,
>wrote about or just 'invented' an entertaining story about. Those who
>actually do have the experience are all too often howled down by self styled
>"experts". No doubt there will be posts from .nl addresses disputing this
>but then they have equal time in this forum too!

Do you time share with your ego or have you just added on to the back of
your head for room?