Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Basic dpi question (art archiving)

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 2:28:04 PM

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
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 6:42:07 PM

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?
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 7:07:04 PM

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
--
Related resources
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 7:36:00 PM

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
> --
>
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 8:01:40 PM

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
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 8:45:24 PM

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/
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 10:16:55 PM

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
Anonymous
September 3, 2004 11:53:11 PM

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...
September 4, 2004 12:03:26 AM

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
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 4:17:59 AM

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.
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 5:00:20 AM

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
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 11:33:29 AM

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....

--

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 2:33:28 PM

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.ht...
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)
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 2:38:47 PM

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)
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 3:22:42 PM

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
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 6:45:33 PM

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
>
>
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 10:18:37 PM

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)
Anonymous
September 4, 2004 11:46:45 PM

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
--
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 12:20:10 AM

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
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 1:28:20 AM

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
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 5:10:29 AM

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
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 5:13:31 AM

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
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 5:35:25 PM

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/
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 6:07:28 PM

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
> --
>
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 6:07:29 PM

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?
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 6:07:30 PM

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

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 04:51:26 GMT, Voivod <Voi@vod.con> wrote:

>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?


Hi Voivod, how about saying sometimes little bit more than only one
sentence? Or, at least, try to...

Dave
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 6:12:27 PM

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

Well, I have to agree there. My business partner recently got slandered in
the groups because he voiced an opinion about a photographic display. He's
posted a $500 reward offer for the identity of the perpurtrator. Hiding
behind a mail2news shield, it is quite possible to do some heavy damage.
Thick skin? Absolutely!

Ryaia
----------------
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:E7SdnRUguIwykafcRVn-ig@golden.net...
> 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.
>
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 6:12:28 PM

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

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 14:12:27 +1000, "Ryadia"
<dont_spam_ryadia@hotmail.com> scribbled:

>Well, I have to agree there. My business partner recently got slandered in
>the groups because he voiced an opinion about a photographic display. He's
>posted a $500 reward offer for the identity of the perpurtrator. Hiding
>behind a mail2news shield, it is quite possible to do some heavy damage.
>Thick skin? Absolutely!

Aww, poor little crybaby.
Anonymous
September 5, 2004 9:57:43 PM

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

When I was told about "The Village Idiot" I didn't quite understand waht
relationship it had with you ...untill I read some of your posts. So now the
thread is complete. All the trolls have joined in. No killfile for you my
non-friend, way too much pleasure to be had from your posts.

Ryadia
--------------

"Voivod" <Voi@vod.con> wrote in message
news:cq6lj0pm23h104tshtprb1mvu8mqki64lk@news-server...
> 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?
>
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 5:02:09 AM

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

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 13:35:25 +0200, nomail@please.invalid (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

>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.

That's interesting. I haven't yet subscribed to that magazine - I tend
to just pick up what's on the shelf rather than subscribing to
something, but it sounds like the mag may be worth having.

I have heard very good things about the Canon, so I'm not entirely
surprised, though I would be surprised if it was as good as MF.

(Incidentally, the reason the guy used a Kodak was that he was a Canon
Nikon user and as Nikon didn't make anything like the Canon 1Ds he
didn't have much choice <g>).

Thanks for the info. :) 

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 10:10:28 AM

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> wrote:

> If the people telling you, you need a 30 Megapixel camera had ever taken a
>photograph with a 4 megapixel DSLR

Unfortunately it is part of simplistic marketing. 30 MUST be better
than 4.

Like a car which goes at 500 MPH MUST be better than a car
that goes at 200 MPH.

The fact that you don't need (and can't use!) a car which goes
at 500 MPH seems to be missed by some people.



Unique and easy to use graphics programs
http://www.ransen.com
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 5:25:18 PM

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

Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote:

> That's interesting. I haven't yet subscribed to that magazine - I tend
> to just pick up what's on the shelf rather than subscribing to
> something, but it sounds like the mag may be worth having.
>
> I have heard very good things about the Canon, so I'm not entirely
> surprised, though I would be surprised if it was as good as MF.

In terms of pure resolution a scanned medium format slide still wins.
But the difference is remarkebly small.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1...

>
> (Incidentally, the reason the guy used a Kodak was that he was a
> Nikon user and as Nikon didn't make anything like the Canon 1Ds he
> didn't have much choice <g>).

Photokina is coming and next week Nikon will announce their new stuff.


--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
Anonymous
September 6, 2004 8:47:28 PM

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

"Johan W. Elzenga" posted:
"Photokina is coming and next week Nikon will announce their
new stuff."



HeHeHeHeHe ...

It is widely rumored that Canon will introduce the EOS 1Ds
Mark II at Photokina, in addition to the EOS 20D they have
already 'leaked.'

HeHeHeHeHe ...
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 1:00:25 AM

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

Slander is only verbal. Libel is in text. If he launches a proper law suit
he can probably get access to the other person's information. If he doesn't
have a legal case he should get on with his life beofre the other person
does.


"Ryadia" <dont_spam_ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2pvhk1FpjbaaU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Well, I have to agree there. My business partner recently got slandered in
> the groups because he voiced an opinion about a photographic display. He's
> posted a $500 reward offer for the identity of the perpurtrator. Hiding
> behind a mail2news shield, it is quite possible to do some heavy damage.
> Thick skin? Absolutely!
>
> Ryaia
> ----------------
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> news:E7SdnRUguIwykafcRVn-ig@golden.net...
> > 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.
> >
>
>
>
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 7:55:39 AM

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

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 13:25:18 +0200, nomail@please.invalid (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

>Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> That's interesting. I haven't yet subscribed to that magazine - I tend
>> to just pick up what's on the shelf rather than subscribing to
>> something, but it sounds like the mag may be worth having.
>>
>> I have heard very good things about the Canon, so I'm not entirely
>> surprised, though I would be surprised if it was as good as MF.
>
>In terms of pure resolution a scanned medium format slide still wins.
>But the difference is remarkebly small.
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1...
>
That's interesting. However, the medium format used was the smallest
<g>

Also, for some images I personally prefer grain to noise (I love the
grain in Tri-X).

Otherwise, it seems excellent. Now, if I could afford one <g>...

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 7:53:28 PM

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

Did I miss the fight?

Was it gory?

Who won?

Articus

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:NO6dnUO1HPFimqDcRVn-gA@golden.net...
> Slander is only verbal. Libel is in text. If he launches a proper law suit
> he can probably get access to the other person's information. If he
> doesn't
> have a legal case he should get on with his life beofre the other person
> does.
>
>
> "Ryadia" <dont_spam_ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2pvhk1FpjbaaU1@uni-berlin.de...
>> Well, I have to agree there. My business partner recently got slandered
>> in
>> the groups because he voiced an opinion about a photographic display.
>> He's
>> posted a $500 reward offer for the identity of the perpurtrator. Hiding
>> behind a mail2news shield, it is quite possible to do some heavy damage.
>> Thick skin? Absolutely!
>>
>> Ryaia
>> ----------------
>> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
>> news:E7SdnRUguIwykafcRVn-ig@golden.net...
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
September 7, 2004 10:08:50 PM

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

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 17:57:43 +1000, "Ryadia"
<dont_spam_ryadia@hotmail.com> scribbled:

>When I was told about "The Village Idiot"

You applied for the job?
Anonymous
September 8, 2004 1:58:47 AM

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

I think they chose the right candidate for the job

Really seems to be making quite a good job of it

Articus

"Voivod" <Voi@vod.con> wrote in message
news:gaurj016bihthp42ccb7hb7tmjsu375d92@news-server...
> On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 17:57:43 +1000, "Ryadia"
> <dont_spam_ryadia@hotmail.com> scribbled:
>
>>When I was told about "The Village Idiot"
>
> You applied for the job?
>
Anonymous
September 8, 2004 11:11:44 AM

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

No one won.
No one ever does.
Technoaussie is our of pocket a few grand chasing the troll and still
looking.
The troll has gone to ground and not making any more posts.
Yesterday the sun rose (and set).
God willing it will rise again tomorrow
http://users.bigpond.net.au/techo-aussie/

Ryadia


"Articus Drools" <spoofed@spooked.com> wrote in message
news:YPk%c.373$ov.132@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> Did I miss the fight?
>
> Was it gory?
>
> Who won?
>
> Articus
>
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> news:NO6dnUO1HPFimqDcRVn-gA@golden.net...
> > Slander is only verbal. Libel is in text. If he launches a proper law
suit
> > he can probably get access to the other person's information. If he
> > doesn't
> > have a legal case he should get on with his life beofre the other person
> > does.
> >
> >
> > "Ryadia" <dont_spam_ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2pvhk1FpjbaaU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >> Well, I have to agree there. My business partner recently got slandered
> >> in
> >> the groups because he voiced an opinion about a photographic display.
> >> He's
> >> posted a $500 reward offer for the identity of the perpurtrator. Hiding
> >> behind a mail2news shield, it is quite possible to do some heavy
damage.
> >> Thick skin? Absolutely!
> >>
> >> Ryaia
> >> ----------------
> >> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
> >> news:E7SdnRUguIwykafcRVn-ig@golden.net...
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
September 8, 2004 11:11:45 AM

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

Dare I ask?

Articus

"Ryadia_" <dont_spam_ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2q6m38FrsptkU1@uni-berlin.de...
> No one won.
> No one ever does.
> Technoaussie is our of pocket a few grand chasing the troll and still
> looking.
> The troll has gone to ground and not making any more posts.
> Yesterday the sun rose (and set).
> God willing it will rise again tomorrow
> http://users.bigpond.net.au/techo-aussie/
>
> Ryadia
>
>
> "Articus Drools" <spoofed@spooked.com> wrote in message
> news:YPk%c.373$ov.132@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>> Did I miss the fight?
>>
>> Was it gory?
>>
>> Who won?
>>
>> Articus
>>
>> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
>> news:NO6dnUO1HPFimqDcRVn-gA@golden.net...
>> > Slander is only verbal. Libel is in text. If he launches a proper law
> suit
>> > he can probably get access to the other person's information. If he
>> > doesn't
>> > have a legal case he should get on with his life beofre the other
>> > person
>> > does.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Ryadia" <dont_spam_ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:2pvhk1FpjbaaU1@uni-berlin.de...
>> >> Well, I have to agree there. My business partner recently got
>> >> slandered
>> >> in
>> >> the groups because he voiced an opinion about a photographic display.
>> >> He's
>> >> posted a $500 reward offer for the identity of the perpurtrator.
>> >> Hiding
>> >> behind a mail2news shield, it is quite possible to do some heavy
> damage.
>> >> Thick skin? Absolutely!
>> >>
>> >> Ryaia
>> >> ----------------
>> >> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
>> >> news:E7SdnRUguIwykafcRVn-ig@golden.net...
>> >> > 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.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
September 20, 2004 9:48:11 AM

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

Your post greatly interests me. I have not done much in this area,
but have begun to dabble in terms of testing resolution extremes of my
6MP Nikon DSLRs. What I get for, say, an eyelash in a waiste length
portrait is a darkened blur as compared to film where each eyelash is
individually identifiable. How can even the best enlargement
extrapolation software interpret that darkened blur that would not
result in a large darkened blur on the final enlarged image? While I
can accept that using such software can do relatively lossless
enlargements, the stuff that has already been lost due to resolution
limitations would seem to be lost forever. Where the loss of such
fine details might not be discernable in 8x10 images, they would be
noticeable the poster sizes you are describing. I would appreciate
your ideas on this.
Anonymous
September 21, 2004 2:51:28 AM

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

z_q-g.-u@cox.net (john chapman) writes:
> Your post greatly interests me. I have not done much in this area,
> but have begun to dabble in terms of testing resolution extremes of
> my 6MP Nikon DSLRs. What I get for, say, an eyelash in a waiste
> length portrait is a darkened blur as compared to film where each
> eyelash is individually identifiable. How can even the best
> enlargement extrapolation software interpret that darkened blur that
> would not result in a large darkened blur on the final enlarged
> image?

It can't. That's basic information theory.

Also, what Ryadia fails to mention, is that while good interpolation
software can do amzing things to images that consists of large fields
of uniform colour, I've yet to see a program that don't break up if
the image contains a lot of fine detail.

And of course, it can not restore detail that was not recorded in the
first place.

> While I can accept that using such software can do relatively
> lossless enlargements, the stuff that has already been lost due to
> resolution limitations would seem to be lost forever. Where the
> loss of such fine details might not be discernable in 8x10 images,
> they would be noticeable the poster sizes you are describing.

Indeed.

> I would appreciate your ideas on this.

Don't hold your breath.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
«To live outside the law, you must be honest.» (Bob Dylan)
Anonymous
September 21, 2004 12:25:42 PM

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

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
>
>
> Don't hold your breath.

Ah yes. From the pixel darling. Author of an "in depth" (not) article
defining the size of a pixel...

To quote: "don't worry about it, it means nothing".

You've done well there Gisle... Don't call the kettle black when you've
got soot all over you too.

Ryadia
Anonymous
September 21, 2004 12:35:25 PM

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

john chapman wrote:

> Your post greatly interests me. I have not done much in this area,
> but have begun to dabble in terms of testing resolution extremes of my
> 6MP Nikon DSLRs. What I get for, say, an eyelash in a waiste length
> portrait is a darkened blur as compared to film where each eyelash is
> individually identifiable. How can even the best enlargement
> extrapolation software interpret that darkened blur that would not
> result in a large darkened blur on the final enlarged image? While I
> can accept that using such software can do relatively lossless
> enlargements, the stuff that has already been lost due to resolution
> limitations would seem to be lost forever. Where the loss of such
> fine details might not be discernable in 8x10 images, they would be
> noticeable the poster sizes you are describing. I would appreciate
> your ideas on this.

Unfortunately I cannot explain the mathematics of Interpolation. All I
can do is demonstrate what it does. Seeing as so many people are
confused about the process and the results it can achieve, I will take
some pictures at work today as I enlarge jobs and post the results
tonight. About 12 hours from the time of this post. There is no reason
why your "eyelash" example cannot enlarge and maintain proportions too.

I've found in the past posting small (Internet ready) images of things
does not show the full story. Hopefully this exercise will not result in
sceptics claiming I've somehow manipulated the pictures. Stand by...

Ryadia.
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 9:03:49 AM

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

Well, I have looked at your posts. According to the texts from your
posts, the interpolators do a good job of retaining detail, but, of
course, cannot and indeed probably should not make detail where there
was none. A tiny smudged eyelash is not noticeable in a small photo,
but the interpolation will provide an accurate replication of that
smudge in a larger print where it now will be visible.

So my digital/analog dilemma remains. Scanned film has much more
detail than a 6MP dslr can provide. How significant (in real world
terms) are the losses going to digital, and can I live with them are
the questions I am still pursuing.

Ryadia <dont_spam_ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2r93siF17i9ekU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> john chapman wrote:
>
> > Your post greatly interests me. I have not done much in this area,
> > but have begun to dabble in terms of testing resolution extremes of my
> > 6MP Nikon DSLRs. What I get for, say, an eyelash in a waiste length
> > portrait is a darkened blur as compared to film where each eyelash is
> > individually identifiable. How can even the best enlargement
> > extrapolation software interpret that darkened blur that would not
> > result in a large darkened blur on the final enlarged image? While I
> > can accept that using such software can do relatively lossless
> > enlargements, the stuff that has already been lost due to resolution
> > limitations would seem to be lost forever. Where the loss of such
> > fine details might not be discernable in 8x10 images, they would be
> > noticeable the poster sizes you are describing. I would appreciate
> > your ideas on this.
>
> Unfortunately I cannot explain the mathematics of Interpolation. All I
> can do is demonstrate what it does. Seeing as so many people are
> confused about the process and the results it can achieve, I will take
> some pictures at work today as I enlarge jobs and post the results
> tonight. About 12 hours from the time of this post. There is no reason
> why your "eyelash" example cannot enlarge and maintain proportions too.
>
> I've found in the past posting small (Internet ready) images of things
> does not show the full story. Hopefully this exercise will not result in
> sceptics claiming I've somehow manipulated the pictures. Stand by...
>
> Ryadia.
Anonymous
September 23, 2004 6:00:56 AM

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

On 22 Sep 2004 05:03:49 -0700, z_q-g.-u@cox.net (john chapman) wrote:

>Well, I have looked at your posts. According to the texts from your
>posts, the interpolators do a good job of retaining detail, but, of
>course, cannot and indeed probably should not make detail where there
>was none. A tiny smudged eyelash is not noticeable in a small photo,
>but the interpolation will provide an accurate replication of that
>smudge in a larger print where it now will be visible.

Unfortunately, Ryadia seems to believe that you can create detail
where there is none, so won't understand your perfectly logical reply.

>So my digital/analog dilemma remains. Scanned film has much more
>detail than a 6MP dslr can provide. How significant (in real world
>terms) are the losses going to digital, and can I live with them are
>the questions I am still pursuing.
>
It depends on what your output is likely to be. I wouldn't, still, use
digital for landscape, (not unless I had a Canon 1Ds anyway) or
anything with large swathes of continuous tone. 6MP will however, get
you very good images for journalism, reportage, and even nature
photography if used correctly. But, you're right, you still won't have
the information scanned film provides. So, it's back down to what use
you are going to put the images.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 12:58:40 AM

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

Hecate wrote:

>
> It depends on what your output is likely to be. I wouldn't, still, use
> digital for landscape, (not unless I had a Canon 1Ds anyway) or
> anything with large swathes of continuous tone. 6MP will however, get
> you very good images for journalism, reportage, and even nature
> photography if used correctly. But, you're right, you still won't have
> the information scanned film provides. So, it's back down to what use
> you are going to put the images.
>
> --
I ditched a perfectly good Fuji GWS 6cm x 9 cm camera to go digital and
ALL my sale prints are either panoramas or 24" x 36" landscapes. There
is simply no contest. No conventional enlarger can produce a print from
medium format and have it look as clear as an enlarged digital print.

If you scan a MF negative on a drum scanner, it still results in grain
either from the emulsion or from the surface of the film. This grain is
the reason why you cannot successfully interpolate a scanned image to
anywhere near the magnification factor you can get with digital. Face it
Hecate, your ideas are just relics from the past.

Ryadia
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 12:58:41 AM

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

Ryadia <dont_spam_ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I ditched a perfectly good Fuji GWS 6cm x 9 cm camera to go digital and
> ALL my sale prints are either panoramas or 24" x 36" landscapes. There
> is simply no contest. No conventional enlarger can produce a print from
> medium format and have it look as clear as an enlarged digital print.
>
> If you scan a MF negative on a drum scanner, it still results in grain
> either from the emulsion or from the surface of the film. This grain is
> the reason why you cannot successfully interpolate a scanned image to
> anywhere near the magnification factor you can get with digital.

Agreed. But there is absolutely no reason to interpolate such a scan
anyway. A 4000 ppi scan from a 6x7 cm slide is approx 100 Mpixels, which
is more than enough pixels to make a 24" x 36" print. To print 24" x 36"
at 300 dpi, one needs 'only' 77 Mpixels, and 300 dpi is overkill for a
large poster anyway.

I agree with you that digital images can be printed at much larger size
than most people anticipate. I print images from a 6 Mpixel DSLR on an
Epson Stylus Pro 7600 at the same size you do, and the result is indeed
impressive. However, if I print a scanned 6x7 cm slide, I do see the
difference in favour of that slide. There simply is more detail. That's
why I will buy a >10 Mpixel DSLR soon. Interpolation can work very well,
but it is no substitute for real captured information. If it was, why
would Nikon announce a 12 Mpixel camera and Canon a 16 Mpixel camera, or
why would anyone be interested in it?


--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 12:58:41 AM

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

I have the same problem that most photographers have. When I take a
shot, or a series of shots I do not necessarily know what I might do
with them in the future. If I ever go back to doing art shows, I will
be enlarging them and selling them ('scapes, wildlife, still life,
etc.). Therefore, in general, I want every shot to be potentially
usable in that forum; i.e., of very high technical quality.

And my dilemma is increased because I have seen some apparently very
sharp (not oversharpened) very large photos from a 6MP Nikon D70. I
do not have much digital experience, but I suspect this is only
possible with certain subjects.

Ryadia <dont_spam_ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2rfo67F19oornU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> Hecate wrote:
>
> >
> > It depends on what your output is likely to be. I wouldn't, still, use
> > digital for landscape, (not unless I had a Canon 1Ds anyway) or
> > anything with large swathes of continuous tone. 6MP will however, get
> > you very good images for journalism, reportage, and even nature
> > photography if used correctly. But, you're right, you still won't have
> > the information scanned film provides. So, it's back down to what use
> > you are going to put the images.
> >
> > --
> I ditched a perfectly good Fuji GWS 6cm x 9 cm camera to go digital and
> ALL my sale prints are either panoramas or 24" x 36" landscapes. There
> is simply no contest. No conventional enlarger can produce a print from
> medium format and have it look as clear as an enlarged digital print.
>
> If you scan a MF negative on a drum scanner, it still results in grain
> either from the emulsion or from the surface of the film. This grain is
> the reason why you cannot successfully interpolate a scanned image to
> anywhere near the magnification factor you can get with digital. Face it
> Hecate, your ideas are just relics from the past.
>
> Ryadia
Anonymous
September 24, 2004 6:35:20 AM

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

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:58:40 +1000, Ryadia
<dont_spam_ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hecate wrote:
>
>>
>> It depends on what your output is likely to be. I wouldn't, still, use
>> digital for landscape, (not unless I had a Canon 1Ds anyway) or
>> anything with large swathes of continuous tone. 6MP will however, get
>> you very good images for journalism, reportage, and even nature
>> photography if used correctly. But, you're right, you still won't have
>> the information scanned film provides. So, it's back down to what use
>> you are going to put the images.
>>
>> --
>I ditched a perfectly good Fuji GWS 6cm x 9 cm camera to go digital and
>ALL my sale prints are either panoramas or 24" x 36" landscapes. There
>is simply no contest. No conventional enlarger can produce a print from
>medium format and have it look as clear as an enlarged digital print.
>
>If you scan a MF negative on a drum scanner, it still results in grain
>either from the emulsion or from the surface of the film. This grain is
>the reason why you cannot successfully interpolate a scanned image to
>anywhere near the magnification factor you can get with digital. Face it
>Hecate, your ideas are just relics from the past.
>
No, you refuse to use the best tool for the job. With film you don't
require interpolation, the file sizes are already there for almost any
size you want to print depending on the format you have used.

I love people that like to live on the bleeding edge of technology, it
provides more work for me when their mistakes show up.

--

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