Why do my jpgs look so bad?

A
Posted By
alloowishus
Jul 22, 2004
Views
3254
Replies
126
Status
Closed
I am using Photoshop 7, and I am saving jpgs and they always look really bad, no matter what quality I save them as, any idea why?, here is a link to some example pics:

http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=91&amp ;startrow=6#pics

I have used other versions of photoshop and they have never looked this bad. Please help, thanks.

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

T
toosano
Jul 22, 2004
Nothing a new camera won’t fix.
Or less alcohol when taking them.
Seriously, you just wanted us to checkout your web site, right?

"alloowishus" wrote in message
I am using Photoshop 7, and I am saving jpgs and they always look really bad, no matter what quality I save them as, any idea why?, here is a link to some example pics:

http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=91&amp ;startrow=6#pics
I have used other versions of photoshop and they have never looked this bad. Please help, thanks.
JC
James Connell
Jul 22, 2004
MArtin Chiselwitt wrote:

tis not Photoshop.. (either) you have a shit camera or you do not know how to take a decent photo..

seems to be BOTH!
PW
Pjotr Wedersteers
Jul 22, 2004
alloowishus wrote:
I am using Photoshop 7, and I am saving jpgs and they always look really bad, no matter what quality I save them as, any idea why?, here is a link to some example pics:

http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=91&amp ;startrow=6#pics
I have used other versions of photoshop and they have never looked this bad. Please help, thanks.

Okay made me look. Happy ? Damn and I thought I was a bad photographer. Looks like bad just got a new definition.
Pjotr
J
jaSPAMc
Jul 22, 2004
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:45:38 -0800, James Connell found these unused words floating about:

MArtin Chiselwitt wrote:

tis not Photoshop.. (either) you have a shit camera or you do not know how to take a decent photo..

seems to be BOTH!

Oh … then he/she/it’s well qualified to teach "electric photographs" at CCSD!
(yeah, that’s the ‘course’ name!)
CN
Chuck Norris
Jul 22, 2004
Step away from the camera and just back away… YIKES.
Did you scan polaroids or what?
Oh wait, I missed that part of your post. You need to save them as JPEG’s on the ‘super awesomeduper’ mode. That should do it.

On 22 Jul 2004 12:59:55 -0700, (alloowishus)
wrote:

I am using Photoshop 7, and I am saving jpgs and they always look really bad, no matter what quality I save them as, any idea why?, here is a link to some example pics:

http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=91&amp ;startrow=6#pics
I have used other versions of photoshop and they have never looked this bad. Please help, thanks.
MC
MArtin Chiselwitt
Jul 22, 2004
alloowishus wrote:
I am using Photoshop 7, and I am saving jpgs and they always look really bad, no matter what quality I save them as, any idea why?, here is a link to some example pics:

http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=91&amp ;startrow=6#pics
I have used other versions of photoshop and they have never looked this bad. Please help, thanks.
tis not Photoshop.. you have a shit camera or you do not know how to take a decent photo..
H
Hecate
Jul 23, 2004
On 22 Jul 2004 12:59:55 -0700, (alloowishus)
wrote:

I am using Photoshop 7, and I am saving jpgs and they always look really bad, no matter what quality I save them as, any idea why?, here is a link to some example pics:

http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=91&amp ;startrow=6#pics
I have used other versions of photoshop and they have never looked this bad. Please help, thanks.

You mean apart from the camera shake, the wrong white balance, the wrong shutter speed and what seems like the bottom of a milk bottle being used as a lens?



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
T
Tabasco1
Jul 23, 2004
I hate to rub salt in an open wound… but they are right. But we should also add over compression.

Seriously though read a book on digital photography and photoshop.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com
A
alloowishus
Jul 23, 2004
Gee, you guys are so helpful, first of all, I didn’t take these photos, and yeah, maybe my camera is shit (sony cybershot, 3.2 megapixels), but I guess my point is that when I save jpgs, they ALWAYS looks like this, meaning all pixelated, even I am saving a jpg that someone else has taken on a good camera, event at "high" quality (i.e. 8 or greater) . If you look at this photo, this was taken by the same camera, but I used a different computer to resize it, optimize it:

http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=89&amp ;startrow=11#pics … and it is not pixelated.

So anyway, I was not looking for a critique of the photos per se, but thank you for the extremely helpful insults.

Hecate …
On 22 Jul 2004 12:59:55 -0700, (alloowishus)
wrote:

I am using Photoshop 7, and I am saving jpgs and they always look really bad, no matter what quality I save them as, any idea why?, here is a link to some example pics:

http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=91&amp ;startrow=6#pics
I have used other versions of photoshop and they have never looked this bad. Please help, thanks.

You mean apart from the camera shake, the wrong white balance, the wrong shutter speed and what seems like the bottom of a milk bottle being used as a lens?



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
C
Camera
Jul 23, 2004
One thing I would suggest is to use a good TIFF file and save it as JPEG format and compare the result and see what the group’s comment.

"Tabasco1"
V
V1nc3nt
Jul 23, 2004
"alloowishus" wrote in message
Gee, you guys are so helpful, first of all, I didn’t take these photos, and yeah, maybe my camera is shit (sony cybershot, 3.2 megapixels), but I guess my point is that when I save jpgs, they ALWAYS looks like this, meaning all pixelated, even I am saving a jpg that someone else has taken on a good camera, event at "high" quality (i.e. 8 or greater) . If you look at this photo, this was taken by the same camera, but I used a different computer to resize it, optimize it:

Was the photo like this (blurred, dark and red), before you resized & and optimized(?), or are you trying to say PS is making your pix look like this after saving as jpeg? If so, maybe it’s a good idea to work on your resizing & optimizing skills.
V
Voivod
Jul 23, 2004
On 22 Jul 2004 23:49:24 -0700, (alloowishus)
scribbled:

Gee, you guys are so helpful, first of all, I didn’t take these photos, and yeah,

You might have mentioned that….

maybe my camera is shit (sony cybershot, 3.2

As are you social skills and apparantly your ability to use Photoshop.

megapixels), but I guess my point is that when I save jpgs, they ALWAYS looks like this, meaning all pixelated, even I am saving a jpg

Ok, you’re a complete fuck up, then.

that someone else has taken on a good camera, event at "high" quality (i.e. 8 or greater) . If you look at this photo, this was taken by the same camera, but I used a different computer to resize it, optimize it:

http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=89&amp ;startrow=11#pics … and it is not pixelated.

Looks as shitty as the rest.

So anyway, I was not looking for a critique of the photos per se, but thank you for the extremely helpful insults.

Anytime.

Hecate …
On 22 Jul 2004 12:59:55 -0700, (alloowishus)
wrote:

I am using Photoshop 7, and I am saving jpgs and they always look really bad, no matter what quality I save them as, any idea why?, here is a link to some example pics:

http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=91&amp ;startrow=6#pics
I have used other versions of photoshop and they have never looked this bad. Please help, thanks.

You mean apart from the camera shake, the wrong white balance, the wrong shutter speed and what seems like the bottom of a milk bottle being used as a lens?



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
T
toosano
Jul 23, 2004
Ok, ok, one hint. Boost the dpi to 3-400 before you even try to work on these photos. That won’t make the pic look any better,
but may help with the pixelation problem.

"alloowishus" wrote in message
Gee, you guys are so helpful, first of all, I didn’t take these photos, and yeah, maybe my camera is shit (sony cybershot, 3.2 megapixels), but I guess my point is that when I save jpgs, they ALWAYS looks like this, meaning all pixelated, even I am saving a jpg that someone else has taken on a good camera, event at "high" quality (i.e. 8 or greater) . If you look at this photo, this was taken by the same camera, but I used a different computer to resize it, optimize it:

http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=89&amp ;startrow=11#pics … and it is not pixelated.

So anyway, I was not looking for a critique of the photos per se, but thank you for the extremely helpful insults.

Hecate wrote in message
news:…
On 22 Jul 2004 12:59:55 -0700, (alloowishus)
wrote:

I am using Photoshop 7, and I am saving jpgs and they always look really bad, no matter what quality I save them as, any idea why?, here is a link to some example pics:
http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=91&amp ;startrow=6#pics
I have used other versions of photoshop and they have never looked this bad. Please help, thanks.

You mean apart from the camera shake, the wrong white balance, the wrong shutter speed and what seems like the bottom of a milk bottle being used as a lens?



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
V
Voivod
Jul 23, 2004
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 06:37:15 -0400, "toosano"
scribbled:

Ok, ok, one hint. Boost the dpi to 3-400 before you even try to work on these photos. That won’t make the pic look any better,
but may help with the pixelation problem.

No, it won’t.

"alloowishus" wrote in message
Gee, you guys are so helpful, first of all, I didn’t take these photos, and yeah, maybe my camera is shit (sony cybershot, 3.2 megapixels), but I guess my point is that when I save jpgs, they ALWAYS looks like this, meaning all pixelated, even I am saving a jpg that someone else has taken on a good camera, event at "high" quality (i.e. 8 or greater) . If you look at this photo, this was taken by the same camera, but I used a different computer to resize it, optimize it:

http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=89&amp ;startrow=11#pics … and it is not pixelated.

So anyway, I was not looking for a critique of the photos per se, but thank you for the extremely helpful insults.

Hecate wrote in message
news:…
On 22 Jul 2004 12:59:55 -0700, (alloowishus)
wrote:

I am using Photoshop 7, and I am saving jpgs and they always look really bad, no matter what quality I save them as, any idea why?, here is a link to some example pics:
http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=91&amp ;startrow=6#pics
I have used other versions of photoshop and they have never looked this bad. Please help, thanks.

You mean apart from the camera shake, the wrong white balance, the wrong shutter speed and what seems like the bottom of a milk bottle being used as a lens?



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
PW
Pjotr Wedersteers
Jul 23, 2004
alloowishus wrote:
Gee, you guys are so helpful, first of all, I didn’t take these photos, and yeah, maybe my camera is shit (sony cybershot, 3.2 megapixels), but I guess my point is that when I save jpgs, they ALWAYS looks like this, meaning all pixelated, even I am saving a jpg that someone else has taken on a good camera, event at "high" quality (i.e. 8 or greater) . If you look at this photo, this was taken by the same camera, but I used a different computer to resize it, optimize it:

http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=89&amp ;startrow=11#pics … and it is not pixelated.

So anyway, I was not looking for a critique of the photos per se, but thank you for the extremely helpful insults.
If we offended you, sorry. You’re right, uncalled for. Mea culpa. But honestly I did not notice a pixelation issue when I looked, I just saw a very vague and fuzzy photo. The second one you just posted a link to is not much better an example for me. If you want to show the real problem, why not post a pic somewhere that is crisp, daylit and has sharp edges along which we can see the clumpyness or pixelation ? And I don’t think the cybershot is a bad camera. it’s not the top either, but no-one says you must have state-of-the-art hardware. And yes, I also think you -or the photographer- could learn a lot. And learning photoshop is a good thing too, plenty of tutorials and tips and tricks around. I have started to collect and categorize links to all good tuts I come across, and it’s becoming quite a nice collection. It’s not really al that yet, but it’s a start. You could ask for links here, but google should do the trick.

HTH
Pjotr
V
Voivod
Jul 23, 2004
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:16:46 +0200, "Pjotr Wedersteers" scribbled:

If we offended you, sorry.

Speak for yourself, you don’t have my permission to apologize for me.
N
noone
Jul 23, 2004
In article ,
says…
I am using Photoshop 7, and I am saving jpgs and they always look really bad, no matter what quality I save them as, any idea why?, here is a link to some example pics:

http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=91&amp ;startrow=6#pics
I have used other versions of photoshop and they have never looked this bad. Please help, thanks.

I’m coming back to the original post, because of all that has gone on down this thread.

First, do you have any examples of an image processed with your older v of PS? I’d like to see a side-by-side of the same image, if possible. There is nothing in PS7 vs CS, that should account for a change, unless some settings are markedly different (I don’t recall any real change in default settings in this area, but maybe I overlooked it and made a change, when I went to CS). A description of the faults that you find, specific to a single example would be the best. Maybe by looking at old v new, someone could find out what changes are taking place in PS.

Hunt
MC
MArtin Chiselwitt
Jul 23, 2004
For a start, what are you talking about, ‘pixellated’??
All I can see are smears, blurs and red-eye. No amount of manipulation in Photoshop is going to disguise the fact that these are terrible pictures to begin with. 3.2 million is MORE than adequate to get good images. Your camera is not ‘shit’. The person taking the photos is to blame. You know the maxim, "A bad worker always blames the tools"? I have a Canon camera that is only 2 million pixels but it takes very good photos if handled correctly, ie with a little knowledge and practice. One thing I do know, digital cameras can be very poor at taking dark, night-time shots if you are expecting to just point and click to get an image. You should maybe try using a tripod at least and cut down on your exposure time to avoid all the light streaking [which can look arty in small amounts, it’s true, but is generally tiresome in a series]. You were not looking for a critique? And you posted a link on a newsgroup? My, you are quite the ingenue… I reiterate, your problem is NOT with Photoshop.

alloowishus wrote:
Gee, you guys are so helpful, first of all, I didn’t take these photos, and yeah, maybe my camera is shit (sony cybershot, 3.2 megapixels), but I guess my point is that when I save jpgs, they ALWAYS looks like this, meaning all pixelated, even I am saving a jpg that someone else has taken on a good camera, event at "high" quality (i.e. 8 or greater) . If you look at this photo, this was taken by the same camera, but I used a different computer to resize it, optimize it:

http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=89&amp ;startrow=11#pics … and it is not pixelated.

So anyway, I was not looking for a critique of the photos per se, but thank you for the extremely helpful insults.

Hecate …

On 22 Jul 2004 12:59:55 -0700, (alloowishus)
wrote:

I am using Photoshop 7, and I am saving jpgs and they always look really bad, no matter what quality I save them as, any idea why?, here is a link to some example pics:

http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=91&amp ;startrow=6#pics
I have used other versions of photoshop and they have never looked this bad. Please help, thanks.

You mean apart from the camera shake, the wrong white balance, the wrong shutter speed and what seems like the bottom of a milk bottle being used as a lens?



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
R
RSD99
Jul 23, 2004
Slow shutter speed + camera movement = what you see
T
toosano
Jul 23, 2004
YES, it will help to limit the pixelation degradation as you work on a pic. If you import a pic at 150dpi, which is about what his cam is, you’ll have no "meat" to work with and will only be degrading it unless you give yourself something to work with. It obviously won’t help the crappy pic, tho, duh.

"Voivod" wrote in message
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 06:37:15 -0400, "toosano"
scribbled:

Ok, ok, one hint. Boost the dpi to 3-400 before you even try to work on these photos. That won’t make the pic look any better,
but may help with the pixelation problem.

No, it won’t.

"alloowishus" wrote in message
Gee, you guys are so helpful, first of all, I didn’t take these photos, and yeah, maybe my camera is shit (sony cybershot, 3.2 megapixels), but I guess my point is that when I save jpgs, they ALWAYS looks like this, meaning all pixelated, even I am saving a jpg that someone else has taken on a good camera, event at "high" quality (i.e. 8 or greater) . If you look at this photo, this was taken by the same camera, but I used a different computer to resize it, optimize it:
http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=89&amp ;startrow=11#pics
… and it is not pixelated.

So anyway, I was not looking for a critique of the photos per se, but thank you for the extremely helpful insults.

Hecate wrote in message
news:…
On 22 Jul 2004 12:59:55 -0700, (alloowishus)
wrote:

I am using Photoshop 7, and I am saving jpgs and they always look really bad, no matter what quality I save them as, any idea why?,
here
is a link to some example pics:
http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=91&amp ;startrow=6#pics
I have used other versions of photoshop and they have never looked this bad. Please help, thanks.

You mean apart from the camera shake, the wrong white balance, the wrong shutter speed and what seems like the bottom of a milk bottle being used as a lens?



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
T
toosano
Jul 23, 2004
Exactly the point. I have used a 1.2 mp cam to take some nice shots. Not my cam of choice but once upon a time it was the hot cam, lol. However, in a low light moving target situation like this guy has, he’s better off with a disposible 35mm cam.

"MArtin Chiselwitt" wrote in message
For a start, what are you talking about, ‘pixellated’??
All I can see are smears, blurs and red-eye. No amount of manipulation in Photoshop is going to disguise the fact that these are terrible pictures to begin with. 3.2 million is MORE than adequate to get good images. Your camera is not ‘shit’. The person taking the photos is to blame. You know the maxim, "A bad worker always blames the tools"? I have a Canon camera that is only 2 million pixels but it takes very good photos if handled correctly, ie with a little knowledge and practice. One thing I do know, digital cameras can be very poor at taking dark, night-time shots if you are expecting to just point and click to get an image. You should maybe try using a tripod at least and cut down on your exposure time to avoid all the light streaking [which can look arty in small amounts, it’s true, but is generally tiresome in a series]. You were not looking for a critique? And you posted a link on a newsgroup? My, you are quite the ingenue… I reiterate, your problem is NOT with Photoshop.

alloowishus wrote:
Gee, you guys are so helpful, first of all, I didn’t take these photos, and yeah, maybe my camera is shit (sony cybershot, 3.2 megapixels), but I guess my point is that when I save jpgs, they ALWAYS looks like this, meaning all pixelated, even I am saving a jpg that someone else has taken on a good camera, event at "high" quality (i.e. 8 or greater) . If you look at this photo, this was taken by the same camera, but I used a different computer to resize it, optimize it:
http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=89&amp ;startrow=11#pics
… and it is not pixelated.

So anyway, I was not looking for a critique of the photos per se, but thank you for the extremely helpful insults.

Hecate wrote in message
news:…
On 22 Jul 2004 12:59:55 -0700, (alloowishus)
wrote:

I am using Photoshop 7, and I am saving jpgs and they always look really bad, no matter what quality I save them as, any idea why?, here is a link to some example pics:

http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=91&amp ;startrow=6#pics
I have used other versions of photoshop and they have never looked this bad. Please help, thanks.

You mean apart from the camera shake, the wrong white balance, the wrong shutter speed and what seems like the bottom of a milk bottle being used as a lens?



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
J
jaSPAMc
Jul 23, 2004
Why would any sane person ‘import’ an image using a rescan/resample comand?

Just transfer the file *as is* from the camera’s memory!

Cor! People make life so hard on themselves …

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:20:24 -0400, "toosano" found these unused words floating about:

YES, it will help to limit the pixelation degradation as you work on a pic. If you import a pic at 150dpi, which is about what his cam is, you’ll have no "meat" to work with and will only be degrading it unless you give yourself something to work with. It obviously won’t help the crappy pic, tho, duh.

"Voivod" wrote in message
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 06:37:15 -0400, "toosano"
scribbled:

Ok, ok, one hint. Boost the dpi to 3-400 before you even try to work on these photos. That won’t make the pic look any better,
but may help with the pixelation problem.

No, it won’t.

"alloowishus" wrote in message
Gee, you guys are so helpful, first of all, I didn’t take these photos, and yeah, maybe my camera is shit (sony cybershot, 3.2 megapixels), but I guess my point is that when I save jpgs, they ALWAYS looks like this, meaning all pixelated, even I am saving a jpg that someone else has taken on a good camera, event at "high" quality (i.e. 8 or greater) . If you look at this photo, this was taken by the same camera, but I used a different computer to resize it, optimize it:
http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=89&amp ;startrow=11#pics
… and it is not pixelated.

So anyway, I was not looking for a critique of the photos per se, but thank you for the extremely helpful insults.

Hecate wrote in message
news:…
On 22 Jul 2004 12:59:55 -0700, (alloowishus)
wrote:

I am using Photoshop 7, and I am saving jpgs and they always look really bad, no matter what quality I save them as, any idea why?,
here
is a link to some example pics:
http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=91&amp ;startrow=6#pics
I have used other versions of photoshop and they have never looked this bad. Please help, thanks.

You mean apart from the camera shake, the wrong white balance, the wrong shutter speed and what seems like the bottom of a milk bottle being used as a lens?



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
V
Voivod
Jul 23, 2004
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:20:24 -0400, "toosano"
scribbled:

YES, it will help to limit the pixelation degradation as you work on a pic.

Pixels don’t degrade. Pixels don’t degrade when you work on an image.

If you import a pic at 150dpi, which is about what his cam is, you’ll have

DPI ONLY applies to a PRINTED image and has NOTHING at all to do with the image as it’s displayed on his, yours or anyone else’s monitor.

Don’t believe me? Here’s two images, one is saved at 5000 DPI the other’s saved at 5 DPI, both are 800 x 600, both are 98.5K. You cannot tell the difference without looking at their properties in Photoshop:

http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01a.jpg
http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01b.jpg

no "meat" to work with and will only be degrading it unless you give yourself something to work with. It obviously won’t help the crappy pic, tho, duh.

Stop pretending you know what you’re talking about, you don’t.
T
toosano
Jul 23, 2004
Dude,
I have restored hundreds of pics. The first thing I do is go to image size and bump up the dpi. Granted, I’m sure there is more than one way to skin a horse, but don’t tell me it doesn’t work.
Blow your pics up 10x and tell me which one looks better.

"Voivod" wrote in message
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:20:24 -0400, "toosano"
scribbled:

YES, it will help to limit the pixelation degradation as you work on a
pic.
Pixels don’t degrade. Pixels don’t degrade when you work on an image.
If you import a pic at 150dpi, which is about what his cam is, you’ll
have
DPI ONLY applies to a PRINTED image and has NOTHING at all to do with the image as it’s displayed on his, yours or anyone else’s monitor.
Don’t believe me? Here’s two images, one is saved at 5000 DPI the other’s saved at 5 DPI, both are 800 x 600, both are 98.5K. You cannot tell the difference without looking at their properties in Photoshop:

http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01a.jpg
http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01b.jpg

no "meat" to work with and will only be degrading it unless you give yourself something to work with. It obviously won’t help the crappy pic, tho, duh.

Stop pretending you know what you’re talking about, you don’t.

V
Voivod
Jul 23, 2004
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:24:21 -0400, "toosano"
scribbled:

Dude,

Don’t call me dude.

I have restored hundreds of pics. The first thing I do is go to image size

Then you’re even more of an idiot than you first appeared to be.

and bump up the dpi. Granted, I’m sure there is more than one way to skin a horse, but don’t tell me it doesn’t work.

It doesn’t work, period. DPI, as already explained ONLY applies to the printed image it has NO effect, none, zero, nada, zilch, on an image as it’s displayed on a monitor.

Blow your pics up 10x and tell me which one looks better.

On a monitor they’ll look EXACTLY the same, E X A C T L Y.

"Voivod" wrote in message
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:20:24 -0400, "toosano"
scribbled:

YES, it will help to limit the pixelation degradation as you work on a
pic.
Pixels don’t degrade. Pixels don’t degrade when you work on an image.
If you import a pic at 150dpi, which is about what his cam is, you’ll
have
DPI ONLY applies to a PRINTED image and has NOTHING at all to do with the image as it’s displayed on his, yours or anyone else’s monitor.
Don’t believe me? Here’s two images, one is saved at 5000 DPI the other’s saved at 5 DPI, both are 800 x 600, both are 98.5K. You cannot tell the difference without looking at their properties in Photoshop:

http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01a.jpg
http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01b.jpg

no "meat" to work with and will only be degrading it unless you give yourself something to work with. It obviously won’t help the crappy pic, tho, duh.

Stop pretending you know what you’re talking about, you don’t.
V
V1nc3nt
Jul 23, 2004
Blow your pics up 10x and tell me which one looks better.

the non blown up ones
N
noone
Jul 23, 2004
In article , says
….
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:20:24 -0400, "toosano"
scribbled:

YES, it will help to limit the pixelation degradation as you work on a pic.

Pixels don’t degrade. Pixels don’t degrade when you work on an image.
If you import a pic at 150dpi, which is about what his cam is, you’ll have

DPI ONLY applies to a PRINTED image and has NOTHING at all to do with the image as it’s displayed on his, yours or anyone else’s monitor.
Don’t believe me? Here’s two images, one is saved at 5000 DPI the other’s saved at 5 DPI, both are 800 x 600, both are 98.5K. You cannot tell the difference without looking at their properties in Photoshop:

http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01a.jpg
http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01b.jpg

no "meat" to work with and will only be degrading it unless you give yourself something to work with. It obviously won’t help the crappy pic, tho, duh.

Stop pretending you know what you’re talking about, you don’t.

Even on my laptop’s monitor, a is definitely sharper than b, especially where the white meets the black background and arcs. However, that said, the examples are extreme in their differences and were they closer, say 72 v 300 ppi, I doubt that anyone could see any difference at all with the images viewed at the same size on the monitor. Thanks for taking the time to allow this a/b comparison.

Hunt
T
toosano
Jul 23, 2004
"Voivod" drooled out his ear in message
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:24:21 -0400, "toosano"

Dude,

Don’t call me dude.
DUDETTE
I have restored hundreds of pics. The first thing I do is go to image
size
Then you’re even more of an idiot than you first appeared to be.
My bank account begs to differ, Yea, say I have stupid customers, that’s next out of your mouth, I’m sure. Whatever.
Save it, I’m immune to your infantile comments.

On a monitor they’ll look EXACTLY the same, E X A C T L Y.
Um, I don’t suppply a monitor with my "prints". Sorry you’re so limited to what you see on a screen.

DPI ONLY applies to a PRINTED image and has NOTHING at all to do with the image as it’s displayed on his, yours or anyone else’s monitor.
DUH! read the original post. Um, jpgs are his problem. Not Screen files;
i.e., GIFS!
For christ’s sake. If you’re going to argue about something, at least know what it is you’re
arguing about.
Damn, I can’t wait until jr. high is back in session.

Don’t believe me? Here’s two images, …….
http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01a.jpg
http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01b.jpg
So that’s what the inside of your brain looks like, hmmm.
V
Voivod
Jul 24, 2004
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:43:45 -0400, "toosano"
scribbled:

"Voivod" drooled out his ear in message
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:24:21 -0400, "toosano"

Dude,

Don’t call me dude.
DUDETTE

Didn’t expect you to br bright enough to catch the musical reference…

I have restored hundreds of pics. The first thing I do is go to image
size
Then you’re even more of an idiot than you first appeared to be.
My bank account begs to differ, Yea, say I have stupid customers, that’s next out of your mouth, I’m sure. Whatever.
Save it, I’m immune to your infantile comments.

That’s why I’m able to drag you back over and over, right?

On a monitor they’ll look EXACTLY the same, E X A C T L Y.
Um, I don’t suppply a monitor with my "prints". Sorry you’re so limited to what you see on a screen.

DPI ONLY applies to a PRINTED image and has NOTHING at all to do with the image as it’s displayed on his, yours or anyone else’s monitor.
DUH! read the original post. Um, jpgs are his problem. Not Screen files;
i.e., GIFS!

WTF are you prattling about? Do you have ANY idea what we’re discussing? It doesn’t appear that way.

For christ’s sake. If you’re going to argue about something, at least know what it is you’re
arguing about.

I do know what I’m talking about, it’s you who seems totally fucked over the concept. Once more, the DPI saved with an image has NOTHING to do with the way the image appears on a monitor. Therefore boosting the DPI of an image prior to editing adds no ‘meat’ to the image, it does not improve the image quality, it does NOTHING. DPI ONLY applies to PRINTING, period.

Damn, I can’t wait until jr. high is back in session.

So you can repeat 7th grade for the 4th time?

Don’t believe me? Here’s two images, …….
http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01a.jpg
http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01b.jpg
So that’s what the inside of your brain looks like, hmmm.

Aww, run out of arguments have you? Go ahead, increase both those images to 8000 x 6000 (your 10x bigger senario) and view them side by side, they’ll look the same. You want to know why? Because, idiot, DPI ONLY APPLIES TO PRINTING!

Now stop pretending you know what you’re talking about.

Toddle along now, loser, you’ve lost, you know it, I know it, anyone with 1/2 a clue knows it.
V
Voivod
Jul 24, 2004
On 23 Jul 2004 22:35:17 GMT, (Hunt) scribbled:

In article , says

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:20:24 -0400, "toosano"
scribbled:

YES, it will help to limit the pixelation degradation as you work on a pic.

Pixels don’t degrade. Pixels don’t degrade when you work on an image.
If you import a pic at 150dpi, which is about what his cam is, you’ll have

DPI ONLY applies to a PRINTED image and has NOTHING at all to do with the image as it’s displayed on his, yours or anyone else’s monitor.
Don’t believe me? Here’s two images, one is saved at 5000 DPI the other’s saved at 5 DPI, both are 800 x 600, both are 98.5K. You cannot tell the difference without looking at their properties in Photoshop:

http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01a.jpg
http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01b.jpg

no "meat" to work with and will only be degrading it unless you give yourself something to work with. It obviously won’t help the crappy pic, tho, duh.

Stop pretending you know what you’re talking about, you don’t.

Even on my laptop’s monitor, a is definitely sharper than b, especially where the white meets the black background and arcs. However, that said, the examples are extreme in their differences and were they closer, say 72 v 300 ppi, I doubt that anyone could see any difference at all with the images viewed at the same size on the monitor. Thanks for taking the time to allow this a/b comparison.

There is NO difference whatsoever in the way either of those images appears on your monitor. There CANNOT be since the DPI (one last time) has no bearing, at all, not even a little, on the monitor display.
PW
Pjotr Wedersteers
Jul 24, 2004
toosano wrote:
Dude,
I have restored hundreds of pics. The first thing I do is go to image size and bump up the dpi. Granted, I’m sure there is more than one way to skin a horse, but don’t tell me it doesn’t work.
Blow your pics up 10x and tell me which one looks better.
Toosano, please explain how you think an image gets better by upsizing it. After all, *for screen work* doubling DPI is exactly the same thing as doubling the pixel count hor and ver. The only difference I can think of is when you talk about print. A bicubic resample of the image at 150 DPI whilst keeping length and width the same probably is better than having the printer work with 72 DPI.

AFAIK a photo on screen never got better by upsizing. There’s really bad, not so bad and good upsizing algoritms, but it still is inventing pixels that weren’t there to begin with. But you make me curious!

Pjotr
T
toosano
Jul 24, 2004
DUDETTE

Didn’t expect you to br bright enough to catch the musical reference…
Don’t patronize me. It belittles you.

I have restored hundreds of pics. The first thing I do is go to image
size
Then you’re even more of an idiot than you first appeared to be.
My bank account begs to differ, Yea, say I have stupid customers, that’s next out of your mouth, I’m sure. Whatever.
Save it, I’m immune to your infantile comments.

That’s why I’m able to drag you back over and over, right?
We all know that’s you’re game, who cares.

On a monitor they’ll look EXACTLY the same, E X A C T L Y.
Um, I don’t suppply a monitor with my "prints". Sorry you’re so limited to what you see on a screen.

DPI ONLY applies to a PRINTED image and has NOTHING at all to do
with
the image as it’s displayed on his, yours or anyone else’s monitor.
DUH! read the original post. Um, jpgs are his problem. Not Screen files;
i.e., GIFS!

If I have a 4"x4", 150 dpi image jpg, and I want to clean it up, I bump it to say 600 dpi while maintaining the 4"x4" size, it is more dense of a file correct?

So, help me out here, Voivod. If you have a 4" x 4", 72 dpi jpg, and you need to fix some problems with the image,
say remove a bug or a zit or something, and save it as an 8 x 8, to print, what is the procedure you would use?
I’m always open to a new way of doing something if it saves me time, or is a better way.
And we’re not talking about what it looks like on the screen. Ultimately, it will get printed out.
T
toosano
Jul 24, 2004
An image does not get better by upsizing it.
I don’t think I’m wrong to say gives you more to work with. If I have a 4"x4", 150 dpi image jpg, and I want to clean it up, I bump it to say 600 dpi while maintaining the 4"x4" size, it is more dense of a file correct?
Now, if you enlarge the photo, let’s say, to remove that big shanker on Voivods face, it is much easier to do.
If you enlarged the same pic at 150 dpi on the screen, to the same size, to do the same thing it would be too pixilated to work with. This is my point. I design ads. If I designed an ad with 150 dpi jpgs imbedded in a hi-res pdf file, it would look horrible in an ad. Most publishers require 300dpi minimum., I submit 6-800 dpi.
But, whatever, all I can say is try it. If there is a better way to do it, I want to hear it!

"Pjotr Wedersteers" wrote in message
toosano wrote:
Dude,
I have restored hundreds of pics. The first thing I do is go to image size and bump up the dpi. Granted, I’m sure there is more than one way to skin a horse, but don’t tell me it doesn’t work.
Blow your pics up 10x and tell me which one looks better.
Toosano, please explain how you think an image gets better by upsizing it. After all, *for screen work* doubling DPI is exactly the same thing as doubling the pixel count hor and ver. The only difference I can think of
is
when you talk about print. A bicubic resample of the image at 150 DPI
whilst
keeping length and width the same probably is better than having the
printer
work with 72 DPI.

AFAIK a photo on screen never got better by upsizing. There’s really bad, not so bad and good upsizing algoritms, but it still is inventing pixels that weren’t there to begin with. But you make me curious!
Pjotr

K
Kleee
Jul 24, 2004
in article , toosano at
wrote on 07/23/2004 6:16 PM:

If there is a better way to do it, I
want to hear it!

There is a better way, but I don’t want to tell you. You are too goofy.
N
noone
Jul 24, 2004
In article , says
….
On 23 Jul 2004 22:35:17 GMT, (Hunt) scribbled:

In article ,
says

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:20:24 -0400, "toosano"
scribbled:

YES, it will help to limit the pixelation degradation as you work on a
pic.
Pixels don’t degrade. Pixels don’t degrade when you work on an image.
If you import a pic at 150dpi, which is about what his cam is, you’ll have

DPI ONLY applies to a PRINTED image and has NOTHING at all to do with the image as it’s displayed on his, yours or anyone else’s monitor.
Don’t believe me? Here’s two images, one is saved at 5000 DPI the other’s saved at 5 DPI, both are 800 x 600, both are 98.5K. You cannot tell the difference without looking at their properties in Photoshop:

http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01a.jpg
http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01b.jpg

no "meat" to work with and will only be degrading it unless you give yourself something to work with. It obviously won’t help the crappy pic, tho, duh.

Stop pretending you know what you’re talking about, you don’t.

Even on my laptop’s monitor, a is definitely sharper than b, especially
where
the white meets the black background and arcs. However, that said, the examples are extreme in their differences and were they closer, say 72 v 300 ppi, I doubt that anyone could see any difference at all with the images viewed at the same size on the monitor. Thanks for taking the time to allow this a/b comparison.

There is NO difference whatsoever in the way either of those images appears on your monitor. There CANNOT be since the DPI (one last time) has no bearing, at all, not even a little, on the monitor display.

Sorry, but I beg to differ. At 1440×900 on the laptop, I can see some flaring of the left side white swoop, especially where it pixelates against the black background. You may not have intended for it to do so, but it does. The edges of the white, both inside and outside edges of the swoop pixelate and the swoop itself is slightly larger. They DO look surprisingly (to me at least) similar, but there is a difference viewed in PS at the same visual image size. Going back and forth on the Web site, I could not tell the difference, if that is what you are looking for. Take both into Photoshop at their respective magnifications, and tell me if you do not see the difference. That white, against black, swoop is the best example in the demonstration.

Hunt

Hunt
V
Voivod
Jul 24, 2004
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 21:13:15 -0400, "toosano"
scribbled:

DUDETTE

Didn’t expect you to br bright enough to catch the musical reference…
Don’t patronize me. It belittles you.

Don’t hide from your ignorance.

I have restored hundreds of pics. The first thing I do is go to image
size
Then you’re even more of an idiot than you first appeared to be.
My bank account begs to differ, Yea, say I have stupid customers, that’s next out of your mouth, I’m sure. Whatever.
Save it, I’m immune to your infantile comments.

That’s why I’m able to drag you back over and over, right?
We all know that’s you’re game, who cares.

Apparently, you.

On a monitor they’ll look EXACTLY the same, E X A C T L Y.
Um, I don’t suppply a monitor with my "prints". Sorry you’re so limited to what you see on a screen.

DPI ONLY applies to a PRINTED image and has NOTHING at all to do
with
the image as it’s displayed on his, yours or anyone else’s monitor.
DUH! read the original post. Um, jpgs are his problem. Not Screen files;
i.e., GIFS!

If I have a 4"x4", 150 dpi image jpg, and I want to clean it up, I bump it to say 600 dpi while maintaining the 4"x4" size, it is more dense of a file correct?

Incorrect, you still have the same pixel dimension image, you’ve added NOTHING to it, the only thing you’ve done is DECREASE the printed size.

So, help me out here, Voivod. If you have a 4" x 4", 72 dpi jpg, and you need to fix some problems with the image,
say remove a bug or a zit or something, and save it as an 8 x 8, to print, what is the procedure you would use?

I wouldn’t. You can’t double the size of an image and expect any type of quality out of it. In other words, you can’t take shit, add more shit and expect anything BUT shit as the end result. But you still seem completely confused by DPI since you still seem to be maintaining that it affects your monitor display/editing ability, unfortunately for your argument, it doesn’t.

I’m always open to a new way of doing something if it saves me time, or is a better way.

Practice this: "Do you want fries with that?"

And we’re not talking about what it looks like on the screen. Ultimately, it will get printed out.

Sorry, we’re talking ABOUT how JPEGs look on the screen, that’s what the entire thread has been about. Go back and review if you’ve gotten lost. Printing the OPs original complaint about why his images looked so bad was NEVER once brought up until you couldn’t back up your arguments.
PN
Peter Nixon
Jul 24, 2004
"alloowishus" wrote in message
I am using Photoshop 7, and I am saving jpgs and they always look really bad, no matter what quality I save them as, any idea why?, here is a link to some example pics:

http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=91&amp ;startrow=6#pics
I have used other versions of photoshop and they have never looked this bad. Please help, thanks.

things to try are:
1) curves
2) levels
3) colour balance
4) unsharp mask.

Probably best in that order

HTH

Peter
T
Tabasco1
Jul 24, 2004
On a monitor they’ll look EXACTLY the same, E X A C T L Y.

Unless of course you right click each image with the zoom tool and select print size. 🙂

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com
T
Tabasco1
Jul 24, 2004
If I have a 4"x4", 150 dpi image jpg, and I want to clean it up, I bump it to say 600 dpi while maintaining the 4"x4" size, it is more
dense
of a file correct?

Depends on the options you select,

No resample and you have a image that will print 1/4 the size but other than that it is exactly the same image.

If you select resample you will have an image that is only 1/4 real data.

So, help me out here, Voivod. If you have a 4" x 4", 72 dpi jpg, and you need to fix some problems with the image,
say remove a bug or a zit or something, and save it as an 8 x 8, to print, what is the procedure you would use?

Rescan because you will degrade the image by resizing it even once much less several times.

And we’re not talking about what it looks like on the screen. Ultimately,
it
will get printed out.

Scanning at 72 dpi is for the lazy or newbie’s. Whether it is for web or print.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com
T
Tabasco1
Jul 24, 2004
There is NO difference whatsoever in the way either of those images appears on your monitor. There CANNOT be since the DPI (one last time) has no bearing, at all, not even a little, on the monitor display.
1/2 credit if you "scan an image" at 5 dpi and then at 5000 dpi which do you think is going to look better once it is edited and set to its final size?

Correct the 5000 dpi image. True it will be a bitch to work with but that is irrelevant to the conversation.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com
V
Voivod
Jul 24, 2004
On 24 Jul 2004 03:52:21 GMT, (Hunt) scribbled:

In article , says

On 23 Jul 2004 22:35:17 GMT, (Hunt) scribbled:

In article ,
says

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:20:24 -0400, "toosano"
scribbled:

YES, it will help to limit the pixelation degradation as you work on a
pic.
Pixels don’t degrade. Pixels don’t degrade when you work on an image.
If you import a pic at 150dpi, which is about what his cam is, you’ll have

DPI ONLY applies to a PRINTED image and has NOTHING at all to do with the image as it’s displayed on his, yours or anyone else’s monitor.
Don’t believe me? Here’s two images, one is saved at 5000 DPI the other’s saved at 5 DPI, both are 800 x 600, both are 98.5K. You cannot tell the difference without looking at their properties in Photoshop:

http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01a.jpg
http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01b.jpg

no "meat" to work with and will only be degrading it unless you give yourself something to work with. It obviously won’t help the crappy pic, tho, duh.

Stop pretending you know what you’re talking about, you don’t.

Even on my laptop’s monitor, a is definitely sharper than b, especially
where
the white meets the black background and arcs. However, that said, the examples are extreme in their differences and were they closer, say 72 v 300 ppi, I doubt that anyone could see any difference at all with the images viewed at the same size on the monitor. Thanks for taking the time to allow this a/b comparison.

There is NO difference whatsoever in the way either of those images appears on your monitor. There CANNOT be since the DPI (one last time) has no bearing, at all, not even a little, on the monitor display.

Sorry, but I beg to differ. At 1440×900 on the laptop, I can see some flaring

You mean a non standard screen resolution? I can’t be blamed for your system faults.

of the left side white swoop, especially where it pixelates against the black background. You may not have intended for it to do so, but it does. The edges of the white, both inside and outside edges of the swoop pixelate and the swoop itself is slightly larger. They DO look surprisingly (to me at least) similar, but there is a difference viewed in PS at the same visual image size. Going back and forth on the Web site, I could not tell the difference, if that is what you are looking for. Take both into Photoshop at their respective magnifications, and tell me if you do not see the difference. That white, against black, swoop is the best example in the demonstration.

http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/001.jpg

Not a damn bit of difference between the two at 100% magnification, there CAN NOT BE since they’re the SAME image. DPI has NO bearing, at all, whatsoever on monitor display.
V
Voivod
Jul 24, 2004
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 06:33:09 GMT, "Tabasco1"
scribbled:

On a monitor they’ll look EXACTLY the same, E X A C T L Y.

Unless of course you right click each image with the zoom tool and select print size. 🙂

We’ve already covered that. The argument was that increasing the DPI of an image increases it’s quality and editablity. Since I’ve already stated that DPI only applies to printing your point is moot. The examples were to show that the set DPI of an image has NO bearing on how it displays on a monitor.
V
Voivod
Jul 24, 2004
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 06:54:08 GMT, "Tabasco1"
scribbled:

There is NO difference whatsoever in the way either of those images appears on your monitor. There CANNOT be since the DPI (one last time) has no bearing, at all, not even a little, on the monitor display.
1/2 credit if you "scan an image" at 5 dpi and then at 5000 dpi which do you think is going to look better once it is edited and set to its final size?
Correct the 5000 dpi image. True it will be a bitch to work with but that is irrelevant to the conversation.

Again, the subject was ‘bumping up’ the DPI of an already existing image to add ‘meat’ you can edit. Do try and keep up with what’s going on.
B
Broga
Jul 24, 2004
You said you usually get better results.
I see most of the replies chose to ignore this and you got the usual helpful comments that one has come to expect from this ng.

Try this.

If this is a different copy of PS to the one you normally use and the results are inferior to what you *usually* get then its probably something to do with the import settings.
For example if you’re using a scanner are the resolution settings etc the same as you normally use.

If you’re using a different machine with a different scanner it could be the quality of the hardware or the default settings.

You could try using some of the basic features of PS to improve them. Try Image>Adjustments>Auto Levels for example
You could also try Filter>Sharpen>Unsharp Mask


www.micromountain.com
"alloowishus" wrote in message
I am using Photoshop 7, and I am saving jpgs and they always look really bad, no matter what quality I save them as, any idea why?, here is a link to some example pics:

http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=91&amp ;startrow=6#pics
I have used other versions of photoshop and they have never looked this bad. Please help, thanks.
T
toosano
Jul 24, 2004
Scanning at 72 dpi is for the lazy or newbie’s. Whether it is for web or print.
The older digital cams only supplied 72dpi
N
noone
Jul 24, 2004
In article , says
….
On 24 Jul 2004 03:52:21 GMT, (Hunt) scribbled:

In article ,
says

On 23 Jul 2004 22:35:17 GMT, (Hunt) scribbled:

In article ,
says

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:20:24 -0400, "toosano"
scribbled:

YES, it will help to limit the pixelation degradation as you work on a
pic.
Pixels don’t degrade. Pixels don’t degrade when you work on an image.
If you import a pic at 150dpi, which is about what his cam is, you’ll
have
DPI ONLY applies to a PRINTED image and has NOTHING at all to do with the image as it’s displayed on his, yours or anyone else’s monitor.
Don’t believe me? Here’s two images, one is saved at 5000 DPI the other’s saved at 5 DPI, both are 800 x 600, both are 98.5K. You cannot tell the difference without looking at their properties in Photoshop:

http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01a.jpg
http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01b.jpg

no "meat" to work with and will only be degrading it unless you give yourself something to work with. It obviously won’t help the crappy pic, tho, duh.

Stop pretending you know what you’re talking about, you don’t.

Even on my laptop’s monitor, a is definitely sharper than b, especially
where
the white meets the black background and arcs. However, that said, the examples are extreme in their differences and were they closer, say 72 v
300
ppi, I doubt that anyone could see any difference at all with the images viewed at the same size on the monitor. Thanks for taking the time to
allow
this a/b comparison.

There is NO difference whatsoever in the way either of those images appears on your monitor. There CANNOT be since the DPI (one last time) has no bearing, at all, not even a little, on the monitor display.

Sorry, but I beg to differ. At 1440×900 on the laptop, I can see some
flaring
You mean a non standard screen resolution? I can’t be blamed for your system faults.

of the left side white swoop, especially where it pixelates against the
black
background. You may not have intended for it to do so, but it does. The
edges
of the white, both inside and outside edges of the swoop pixelate and the swoop itself is slightly larger. They DO look surprisingly (to me at least) similar, but there is a difference viewed in PS at the same visual image
size.
Going back and forth on the Web site, I could not tell the difference, if
that
is what you are looking for. Take both into Photoshop at their respective magnifications, and tell me if you do not see the difference. That white, against black, swoop is the best example in the demonstration.

http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/001.jpg

Not a damn bit of difference between the two at 100% magnification, there CAN NOT BE since they’re the SAME image. DPI has NO bearing, at all, whatsoever on monitor display.

I don’t wish to burst your bubble, but I can see a difference. Maybe look closely at the area(s) that I mention. I have a feeling that if I crank up one of the workstations, I’d see even more. I’m not talking major degredation here, but I can notice the difference.
Hunt
T
Tabasco1
Jul 24, 2004
"toosano" wrote in message
Scanning at 72 dpi is for the lazy or newbie’s. Whether it is for web or print.
The older digital cams only supplied 72dpi
Opps, I am not sure why I started throwing out Scan stuff.

But the dpi of the camera doesn’t matter all that much. After all dpi is just a setting in the exif section. That is why changing the dpi with out resample checked is instantaneous no mater the size of our image.

This means that you can change the dpi for printing with out problem. Sure the print size will drop but that is fine.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com
T
Tabasco1
Jul 24, 2004
Again, the subject was ‘bumping up’ the DPI of an already existing image to add ‘meat’ you can edit. Do try and keep up with what’s going on.
Relax, I am not part or the attack pack I am just throwing this out for the newbies who are watching. They confuse sooo easy.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com
V
Voivod
Jul 24, 2004
On 24 Jul 2004 15:14:07 GMT, (Hunt) scribbled:

In article , says

On 24 Jul 2004 03:52:21 GMT, (Hunt) scribbled:

In article ,
says

On 23 Jul 2004 22:35:17 GMT, (Hunt) scribbled:

In article ,
says

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:20:24 -0400, "toosano"
scribbled:

YES, it will help to limit the pixelation degradation as you work on a
pic.
Pixels don’t degrade. Pixels don’t degrade when you work on an image.
If you import a pic at 150dpi, which is about what his cam is, you’ll
have
DPI ONLY applies to a PRINTED image and has NOTHING at all to do with the image as it’s displayed on his, yours or anyone else’s monitor.
Don’t believe me? Here’s two images, one is saved at 5000 DPI the other’s saved at 5 DPI, both are 800 x 600, both are 98.5K. You cannot tell the difference without looking at their properties in Photoshop:

http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01a.jpg
http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/abstract01b.jpg

no "meat" to work with and will only be degrading it unless you give yourself something to work with. It obviously won’t help the crappy pic, tho, duh.

Stop pretending you know what you’re talking about, you don’t.

Even on my laptop’s monitor, a is definitely sharper than b, especially
where
the white meets the black background and arcs. However, that said, the examples are extreme in their differences and were they closer, say 72 v
300
ppi, I doubt that anyone could see any difference at all with the images viewed at the same size on the monitor. Thanks for taking the time to
allow
this a/b comparison.

There is NO difference whatsoever in the way either of those images appears on your monitor. There CANNOT be since the DPI (one last time) has no bearing, at all, not even a little, on the monitor display.

Sorry, but I beg to differ. At 1440×900 on the laptop, I can see some
flaring
You mean a non standard screen resolution? I can’t be blamed for your system faults.

of the left side white swoop, especially where it pixelates against the
black
background. You may not have intended for it to do so, but it does. The
edges
of the white, both inside and outside edges of the swoop pixelate and the swoop itself is slightly larger. They DO look surprisingly (to me at least) similar, but there is a difference viewed in PS at the same visual image
size.
Going back and forth on the Web site, I could not tell the difference, if
that
is what you are looking for. Take both into Photoshop at their respective magnifications, and tell me if you do not see the difference. That white, against black, swoop is the best example in the demonstration.

http://s90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/001.jpg

Not a damn bit of difference between the two at 100% magnification, there CAN NOT BE since they’re the SAME image. DPI has NO bearing, at all, whatsoever on monitor display.

I don’t wish to burst your bubble, but I can see a difference. Maybe look closely at the area(s) that I mention. I have a feeling that if I crank up one of the workstations, I’d see even more. I’m not talking major degredation here, but I can notice the difference.

The differences you’re seeing are perceived, you’re imagining them, there is NO difference between the two images, none, there cannot be since they both originate from the same source image.
TH
Tom Harvey
Jul 24, 2004
90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/001.jpg

Not a damn bit of difference between the two at 100% magnification, there CAN NOT BE since they’re the SAME image. DPI has NO bearing, at all, whatsoever on monitor display.

I don’t wish to burst your bubble, but I can see a difference. Maybe look closely at the area(s) that I mention. I have a feeling that if I crank up one
of the workstations, I’d see even more. I’m not talking major degredation here, but I can notice the difference.

The differences you’re seeing are perceived, you’re imagining them, there is NO difference between the two images, none, there cannot be since they both originate from the same source image.

They certainly are the same. If evidence is required, run them through windiff or a similar file comparison tool and you will only find a couple of differences in the header. Any differences are, as you say, perceived.

My understanding is the DPI is purely a ratio to aid calculations when transposing an image in a file (measured in pixels) to the print on page (measured in inches) when preparing to print, and has no other purpose at all. Doubling the print size will halve the DPI, and vice versa, but not effect the file in the slightest.

Does that sound about right?

Tom Harvey______________________________________________________ _____ http://www.harveyzone.com/ Home: tom(a)harveyzone.com
V
Voivod
Jul 24, 2004
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 22:35:20 +0100, Tom Harvey
scribbled:

90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/001.jpg

Not a damn bit of difference between the two at 100% magnification, there CAN NOT BE since they’re the SAME image. DPI has NO bearing, at all, whatsoever on monitor display.

I don’t wish to burst your bubble, but I can see a difference. Maybe look closely at the area(s) that I mention. I have a feeling that if I crank up one
of the workstations, I’d see even more. I’m not talking major degredation here, but I can notice the difference.

The differences you’re seeing are perceived, you’re imagining them, there is NO difference between the two images, none, there cannot be since they both originate from the same source image.

They certainly are the same. If evidence is required, run them through

That’s what I’ve been saying! 🙂 But we’ve got one guy imagining differences and another saying (lamely trying to win a lost argument) if you increase the pixel dimension by a factor of 10 that one will look better on the monitor than the other… *sigh*

windiff or a similar file comparison tool and you will only find a couple of differences in the header. Any differences are, as you say, perceived.

My understanding is the DPI is purely a ratio to aid calculations when transposing an image in a file (measured in pixels) to the print on page (measured in inches) when preparing to print, and has no other purpose at all. Doubling the print size will halve the DPI, and vice versa, but not effect the file in the slightest.

Does that sound about right?

You got it. It’s been discusses endlessly here. DPI only applies to the printed image, it has no effect whatsoever on the monitor display.
TB
The Buckster
Jul 25, 2004
Are jpg’s more print oriented than gifs?
Just curious.

"Voivod" wrote in message
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 22:35:20 +0100, Tom Harvey
scribbled:

90011794.onlinehome.us/pixels/001.jpg

Not a damn bit of difference between the two at 100% magnification, there CAN NOT BE since they’re the SAME image. DPI has NO bearing, at all, whatsoever on monitor display.

I don’t wish to burst your bubble, but I can see a difference. Maybe
look
closely at the area(s) that I mention. I have a feeling that if I crank up one
of the workstations, I’d see even more. I’m not talking major
degredation
here, but I can notice the difference.

The differences you’re seeing are perceived, you’re imagining them, there is NO difference between the two images, none, there cannot be since they both originate from the same source image.

They certainly are the same. If evidence is required, run them through

That’s what I’ve been saying! 🙂 But we’ve got one guy imagining differences and another saying (lamely trying to win a lost argument) if you increase the pixel dimension by a factor of 10 that one will look better on the monitor than the other… *sigh*

windiff or a similar file comparison tool and you will only find a couple of differences in the header. Any differences are, as you say, perceived.

My understanding is the DPI is purely a ratio to aid calculations when transposing an image in a file (measured in pixels) to the print on page (measured in inches) when preparing to print, and has no other purpose at all. Doubling the print size will halve the DPI, and vice versa, but not effect the file in the slightest.

Does that sound about right?

You got it. It’s been discusses endlessly here. DPI only applies to the printed image, it has no effect whatsoever on the monitor display.
T
Tabasco1
Jul 25, 2004
"The Buckster" wrote in message
Are jpg’s more print oriented than gifs?
Just curious.

I wouldn’t recommended either for any serious print work but yes jpegs will likely print better than gifs.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com
R
RSD99
Jul 25, 2004
"The Buckster" posted:
"…
Are jpg’s more print oriented than gifs?
Just curious.
…."

Neither is what you want to use.

Use TIFFs … or for 4-color separations … CMYK TIFFs or EPS.
R
Roberto
Jul 25, 2004
A conservativley compressed 3 meg jpeg from a 5 MP camera will be indiscernable from a 20 meg tiff from same when printed. Go try it now, printed side to side on same press sheet.

The real problem is that people do not understand the benefits/limitations of jpegs, and how to adjust the parameters.

Wrong paper stock, printer calibration, and registration problems will do far more damage to the final image than conservative jpeg compression.

JD

"RSD99" wrote in message
"The Buckster" posted:
"…
Are jpg’s more print oriented than gifs?
Just curious.
…"

Neither is what you want to use.

Use TIFFs … or for 4-color separations … CMYK TIFFs or EPS.
HF
Hans Fleischmann
Jul 25, 2004
Jeff H. wrote:
A conservativley compressed 3 meg jpeg from a 5 MP camera will be indiscernable from a 20 meg tiff from same when printed. Go try it now, printed side to side on same press sheet.

The real problem is that people do not understand the benefits/limitations of jpegs, and how to adjust the parameters.

Wrong paper stock, printer calibration, and registration problems will do far more damage to the final image than conservative jpeg compression.
JD
I can’t say you’re wrong. But that still makes jpeg inferior to tiff for printing purposes, since filesize will not matter that much and compression is still (a minor) factor in quality.


Hans Fleischmann

PGP-KeyID: 0x676FB35B
+31650525455
R
RSD99
Jul 25, 2004
"Hans Fleischmann" posted:
"…
I can’t say you’re wrong. But that still makes jpeg inferior to tiff for printing purposes, since filesize will not matter that much and compression is still (a minor) factor in quality.
…."

Don’t worry about it … "Jeff H." is just showing his lack of experience in the real-world of image reproduction …
R
Roberto
Jul 25, 2004
RSD 99,

I’m able to work in the field full-time and make a great living with my "lack of experience".

Working with 50-100 meg tiffs isn’t practical – or necessary – in the real world, and you know it.

Do you know what a printer’s loupe is? Borrow one, use it on a press sheet for my test mentioned. Or if you want some instant gratification….

There was bright person here who years ago proprosed layering a 8×10 300 ppi jpeg with 0-5% compression over an original tiff, using difference mode. This shows the "artifacts" or "difference" thereof between the 2 images. Notice how there is basically NONE.

Back to my point… when people think of jpegs, they cast them in bad light for the wrong reason.

As prepress people we’ve been sent to websites to get logos that are 200 pixels across, compressed at 50%. Of course that looks bad. Nothing to do with the format, everything to do with the preson who prepared the file, and the decisions they made.

JD

Don’t worry about it … "Jeff H." is just showing his lack of experience
in the
real-world of image reproduction …
R
Roberto
Jul 25, 2004
Jpeg can be inferior to the tiff format, between "very noticable" or "unnoticeable" degrees. It all depends on adjustments selected. To bad many pick 50% compression as a "starting point" – a compromise. This shows that they have no idea what they’re doing, and are guessing at the parameters.

Even using jpegs at 0-5% compression – files are reduced dramatically over LZW tiffs. That’s a clear benefit.

From my experience, jpegs with 10% compression or less are indiscernable from a tiff – even with a loupe – when printed on any stock.

Dropping a catalogue project from 1 Gig to 100 meg is a real benefit.

Some say, "yeah but jpeg compression is "cumulative". And it certainly is. It’s clearly noticeable at med-high compression rates. These rates shouldn’t be used in pre-press, but often are by newcomers.

Open a large tiff and save as jpeg at 0%. Open the jpeg and recompress. Do this five times. Layer final version over the original tiff in diff. mode. Even after 5 re-saves, image STILL has negligible artifacts. I’ve never needed to open and resave the same image more than 3 times…

JD

I can’t say you’re wrong. But that still makes jpeg inferior to tiff for printing purposes, since filesize will not matter that much and compression is still (a minor) factor in quality.


Hans Fleischmann

PGP-KeyID: 0x676FB35B
+31650525455
R
RSD99
Jul 25, 2004
"Jeff H." posted:
"…
Working with 50-100 meg tiffs isn’t practical – or necessary – in the real world, and you know it.
…."

Bull-Shite … I do it every day. Fifty megabytes is about right for a B&W image, and triple-digit TIFFs are *not* uncommon ’round here.

"Jeff H." additionally posted:
"…
Do you know what a printer’s loupe is? Borrow one,
…."

A "printer’s loupe" is really pretty crude when compared to a good photographer’s loupe …. of which I have several. Better yet is a used 35 mm to 40 mm (focal length) lens from a 35 mm camera. However, I suppose that as a "prepress person" … a linen tester is probably your preferred tool.

"Jeff H." posted:
"…
As prepress people
…."

Ahhhhhhh … that explains your "position" and "knowledge level."
N
nada
Jul 25, 2004
but I can see a difference. Maybe look
closely at the area(s) that I mention. I have a feeling that if I crank up one of the workstations, I’d see even more. I’m not talking major degredation here, but I can notice the difference.
Hunt
I’m sorry to say but Voivod has right
DPI has NOTHING to do with viewing a picture on the monitor. If you only should view a picture on a monitor you could save it with what DPI you want. So I don’t know how you can see any differencies in the pictures.
R
Roberto
Jul 25, 2004
Bull-Shite … I do it every day. Fifty megabytes is about right for a B&W
image, and
triple-digit TIFFs are *not* uncommon ’round here.

They can be, but don’t need to be. Glad it works for you. 🙂 When you say 50 meg B/W, do you mean 1 bit or greyscale? That’s a heck of a file either way….

A "printer’s loupe" is really pretty crude when compared to a good
photographer’s loupe

At the end of the day, the offset printing process and the limitation of ink itself creates far more damage than 0-5% jpeg compression. IMO, from extensive tests here.

JD
TB
The Buckster
Jul 25, 2004
Big duh there!
Two completely different beasts.

"Dr
H
Hecate
Jul 26, 2004
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 23:31:04 -0600, "Jeff H." wrote:

A conservativley compressed 3 meg jpeg from a 5 MP camera will be indiscernable from a 20 meg tiff from same when printed. Go try it now, printed side to side on same press sheet.

The real problem is that people do not understand the benefits/limitations of jpegs, and how to adjust the parameters.

Wrong paper stock, printer calibration, and registration problems will do far more damage to the final image than conservative jpeg compression.
Try printing both at 20×16 and see if you still think so. 🙂



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
Jul 26, 2004
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 13:21:57 -0600, "Jeff H." wrote:

RSD 99,

I’m able to work in the field full-time and make a great living with my "lack of experience".

Working with 50-100 meg tiffs isn’t practical – or necessary – in the real world, and you know it.

Funny that because I work with them all the time. It only requires a good computer and lots of RAM.



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
R
Roberto
Jul 26, 2004
Hi Hecate,

the kind of work I’m referring to would be more for magazine photos, etc.

Posters/billboards… the LPI & DPI being reduced would cause a loss of fidelity much worse than artifacts, true?

JD

Try printing both at 20×16 and see if you still think so. 🙂


Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
R
Roberto
Jul 26, 2004
Are these LZW compressed or not?

JD

Funny that because I work with them all the time. It only requires a good computer and lots of RAM.



Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui
T
Tabasco1
Jul 26, 2004
"Jeff H." wrote in message
A conservativley compressed 3 meg jpeg from a 5 MP camera will be indiscernable from a 20 meg tiff from same when printed. Go try it now, printed side to side on same press sheet.

The real problem is that people do not understand the benefits/limitations of jpegs, and how to adjust the parameters.

Wrong paper stock, printer calibration, and registration problems will do far more damage to the final image than conservative jpeg compression.

When you want your images to really PoP you do not do things that will harm your image… even a little.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com
T
Tabasco1
Jul 26, 2004
"RSD99" wrote in message
"Jeff H." posted:
"…
Working with 50-100 meg tiffs isn’t practical – or necessary – in the real world, and you know it.
…"

Shucks, I feel silly using files 3 to 5 times that large on occation.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com
T
Tabasco1
Jul 26, 2004
"Hecate" wrote in message
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 13:21:57 -0600, "Jeff H." wrote:

RSD 99,

I’m able to work in the field full-time and make a great living with my "lack of experience".

Working with 50-100 meg tiffs isn’t practical – or necessary – in the
real
world, and you know it.

Funny that because I work with them all the time. It only requires a good computer and lots of RAM.

Doing good prints isn’t cheep. But you do end up with a cool computer that all your friends want to drool over.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com
T
Tabasco1
Jul 26, 2004
"Jeff H." wrote in message
Are these LZW compressed or not?

LZW compression is fine… Why because it is lossless.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com
R
Roberto
Jul 26, 2004
Let me guess… you’re upsampling a jpeg from a 3 MP camera to become a 300 meg uncompressed tiff. 🙂

Please share with us how you’ve come across a 500 meg tiff file. Many of us are curious I’ll bet.

JD

"…
Working with 50-100 meg tiffs isn’t practical – or necessary – in the
real
world, and you know it.
…"

Shucks, I feel silly using files 3 to 5 times that large on occation.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com

R
Roberto
Jul 26, 2004
I realize this, actually trying to discern how this guy has either a 50-100 meg 8 bit or 1 bit file.

JD

LZW compression is fine… Why because it is lossless.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com

R
Roberto
Jul 26, 2004
Well let’s see here…

Ever listen to an MP3? it must be agony for your super-senses since 80-90% of the raw data is discarded. Only pure Wav files for you! 🙂

How about surfing the web… jpeg’s abound! It must seem like sandpaper on your eyeballs!

You guys are nutz, knocking yourselves out over hair-splitting details that no-one sees once the job is reproduced.

JD

When you want your images to really PoP you do not do things that will
harm
your image… even a little.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com

V
V1nc3nt
Jul 26, 2004
"Jeff H." wrote in message
Well let’s see here…

Ever listen to an MP3? it must be agony for your super-senses since 80-90% of the raw data is discarded. Only pure Wav files for you! 🙂

I wished that MP3 sounded as good as jpg looks. The 80-90% that’s being filtered out, is just as much WAV as the rest. MP3 is just a thumbnail of the real thing. All ‘life’ has been taken out, and you’re left with a flat line of sound. You won’t find a professional on sound working with MP3, other than mabye using it for a sample to send by mail.

So, imo a bad example.
SM
Steve Moody
Jul 26, 2004
In article , toosano
wrote:

If I have a 4"x4", 150 dpi image jpg, and I want to clean it up, I bump it to say 600 dpi while maintaining the 4"x4" size, it is more dense of a file correct?

This is where you are confused. Voivod is talking about changing the DPI. You are talking about changing the dpi AND resizing the image. Change JUST the dpi and you will see what he is talking about. DPI is about printing. It has no bearing on the appearance of an image on the screen.

You are wrong.
SM
Steve Moody
Jul 26, 2004
In article , toosano
wrote:

If there is a better way to do it, I want to hear it!

No you don’t! Viovod is telling you the truth and you are ignoring it.
SM
Steve Moody
Jul 26, 2004
In article wrote:

Even on my laptop’s monitor, a is definitely sharper than b, especially where the white meets the black background and arcs.

You are seeing what you want to see. But the images are identical.
T
Tabasco1
Jul 26, 2004
"Jeff H." wrote in message
Let me guess… you’re upsampling a jpeg from a 3 MP camera to become a
300
meg uncompressed tiff. 🙂

Please share with us how you’ve come across a 500 meg tiff file. Many of
us
are curious I’ll bet.

JD

"…
Working with 50-100 meg tiffs isn’t practical – or necessary – in the
real
world, and you know it.
…"

Shucks, I feel silly using files 3 to 5 times that large on occation.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com

T
Tabasco1
Jul 26, 2004
"Jeff H." wrote in message
Let me guess… you’re upsampling a jpeg from a 3 MP camera to become a
300
meg uncompressed tiff. 🙂

Please share with us how you’ve come across a 500 meg tiff file. Many of
us
are curious I’ll bet.

The best way to do that is to create your own.

Scanning a medium or large format negative with the idea to print at 42 by 64 makes it easy to come up with a tiff that size. Actually 500 meg at that point is a little small… not too small mind you but a little more resolution might be in order sometimes. 🙂

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com
T
Tabasco1
Jul 26, 2004
"Jeff H." wrote in message
I realize this, actually trying to discern how this guy has either a
50-100
meg 8 bit or 1 bit file.

Grayscale it is not that hard provided you are outputting to a LARGE printer. If you have a 1 bit file going It would indeed be impressive.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com
T
Tabasco1
Jul 26, 2004
"Jeff H." wrote in message
Well let’s see here…

Ever listen to an MP3? it must be agony for your super-senses since 80-90% of the raw data is discarded. Only pure Wav files for you! 🙂
128kbps is torture 160kbps is tollerable and 192 kbps I can’t tell the differance. Then again the limmiting factor may be my speakers which are good but not exactly audiophile quality.

How about surfing the web… jpeg’s abound! It must seem like sandpaper on your eyeballs!

How right you are. There are tons of horibble jpegs out there on the net. Color casts, over compression, bad lighting and much more.

You guys are nutz, knocking yourselves out over hair-splitting details
that
no-one sees once the job is reproduced.

If your clients don’t notice fine. But I have had to deal with a few to many artists who do notice the differance and I had to learn to see the differance. Most people can learn to see the differance. However, even those who haven’t learned the differance when pressented with side by side comparisons of the exact same image but one is a tiff and the other is a jpeg. Gennerally do pick the tiff as the better picture even though very few of them could say why.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com
R
RSD99
Jul 26, 2004
"Jeff H." posted the question:
"…
actually trying to discern how this guy has either a 50-100 meg 8 bit or 1 bit file. …."

Attention:
World To "Jeff H." …
Not everybody uses a "3MP (consumer-level) Digital Camera."

It’s actually very simple ..

(1) scan a piece of **film** at a resolution of 3200 spi, 4800 spi, or even 9600 spi … or

(2) Use a professional-level digital camera …such as a PhaseOne, BetterLight. or etcetera. It is not uncommon to find one of these that produces images as large as 10,000 x 15,000 pixels.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Just for "drill" …

Right now there is a piece of "medium format" 120 roll film shot in a Rolliflex 2.8e in the Epson 4870. According to Silverfast, the image area is roughly 2.2" x 2.2". Image sizes would be roughly as follows:

DPI 1200
Image Area (pixels) 2600 x 2600
Image Size (pixels) 6.76 MP
Total file size (RGB) 19.35 MB

DPI 1800
Image Area (pixels) 3900 x 3900
Image Size (pixels) 15.2 MP
Total file size (RGB) 43.5 MB

DPI 2400
Image Area (pixels) 5200 x 5200
Image Size (pixels) 27 MP
Total file size (RGB) 77 MB

DPI 3200
Image Area (pixels) 6900 x 6900
Image Size (pixels) 47.6 MP
Total file size (RGB) 138 MB

DPI 4800
Image Area (pixels) 10,000 x 10,000
Image Size (pixels) 100 MP
Total file size (RGB) 310 MB

DPI 9600
Image Area (pixels) 20,000 x 20,000
Image Size (pixels) 400 MP
Total file size (RGB) 1,239 MB

And then there is 4" x 5" sheet film … a size commonly used by **many** professional photographers.The active image area is roughly 3.6" x 4.7" Image sizes would be roughly as
follows:

DPI 1200
Image Area (pixels) 5650 x 4350
Image Size (pixels) 24.5 MP
Total file size (RGB) 74 MB

DPI 1800
Image Area (pixels) 8500 x 6500
Image Size (pixels) 55 MP
Total file size (RGB) 165 MB

DPI 2400
Image Area (pixels) 11,000 x 8,700
Image Size (pixels) 95.7 MP
Total file size (RGB) 287 MB

etcetera

etcetera

[Oh … and for B&W … divide the "Total File Size" by three (3).]

And then there is 5" x 7" sheet film … a size not commonly found, but was once the mainstay of many professional photographers …

And then there is 8" x 10" sheet film …

And then there is *even* *larger* sizes of sheet film … used by some of the large-format practitioners … sizes such as 11" x 14" and 14" x 20" and 16" x 20" and 20" x 24" …

And then you can add in using a higher quality scanner, such as the "high end" drum scanners made by companies such as the Aztek, Crossfield, Linotype-Hell, Screen, and so forth, that can scan up to 15.000 samples per inch …

And then … well, by now, you probably "get the idea." Roger N. Clark was recently posting (in rec.photo.technique.nature) about testing the Epson 4870’s ability to scan 4" x 5" Velvia transparencies at it’s maximum usable resolutions (3200 spi and 4800 spi) … and was making files in the neighborhood of 2 GigaBytes! Large image files are not really all that "rare."
D
DSphotog
Jul 26, 2004
Jeff,

People with your attitude about their work are part of the reason that things in this (USA) country are going to Hell in a hand basket. Instead of doing something to the best of their ability, they’re happy making it just "good enough". And by all means, sell if for less. Guess who that lets into the market.

Just MHO though, others may disagree.

Best,
Dave
"Jeff H." wrote in message
Well let’s see here…

Ever listen to an MP3? it must be agony for your super-senses since 80-90% of the raw data is discarded. Only pure Wav files for you! 🙂
How about surfing the web… jpeg’s abound! It must seem like sandpaper on your eyeballs!

You guys are nutz, knocking yourselves out over hair-splitting details
that
no-one sees once the job is reproduced.

JD

When you want your images to really PoP you do not do things that will
harm
your image… even a little.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com

MR
Mike Russell
Jul 26, 2004
Is it something in the air, or what? It seems like there’s a lot more flaming going on on the net in the last week or so.


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

DSphotog wrote:
Jeff,

People with your attitude about their work are part of the reason that things in this (USA) country are going to Hell in a hand basket. Instead of doing something to the best of their ability, they’re happy making it just "good enough". And by all means, sell if for less. Guess who that lets into the market.

Just MHO though, others may disagree.

Best,
Dave
"Jeff H." wrote in message
Well let’s see here…

Ever listen to an MP3? it must be agony for your super-senses since 80-90% of the raw data is discarded. Only pure Wav files for you! 🙂
How about surfing the web… jpeg’s abound! It must seem like sandpaper on your eyeballs!

You guys are nutz, knocking yourselves out over hair-splitting details that no-one sees once the job is reproduced.

JD

When you want your images to really PoP you do not do things that will harm your image… even a little.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com
R
RSD99
Jul 26, 2004
HeHeHeHe …

Schools out … Summer School is over … etcetera, etcetera, etcetera …

HeHeHeHe …

"Mike Russell" wrote in message
Is it something in the air, or what? It seems like there’s a lot more flaming going on on the net in the last week or so.


Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net
D
DSphotog
Jul 27, 2004
FYI, I’m 60 and this guy’s attitude just pissed me off.

Sorry, lost it for a minute there.

Best,
Dave
"RSD99" wrote in message
HeHeHeHe …

Schools out … Summer School is over … etcetera, etcetera, etcetera …
HeHeHeHe …

"Mike Russell" wrote in message
Is it something in the air, or what? It seems like there’s a lot more flaming going on on the net in the last week or so.


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

H
Hecate
Jul 27, 2004
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:22:51 -0600, "Jeff H." wrote:

Are these LZW compressed or not?
Nope.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
Jul 27, 2004
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:22:09 -0600, "Jeff H." wrote:

Hi Hecate,

the kind of work I’m referring to would be more for magazine photos, etc.

Depends on the printing, the paper stock, etc.

Posters/billboards… the LPI & DPI being reduced would cause a loss of fidelity much worse than artifacts, true?
Nope. A lot of larger size images are printed on a sliding scale. A2/A1 is often printed at 240dpi or less. It has more to do with the viewing distance than anything else. However, there is a level below which it just looks like crap at any dpi. 😉



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
Jul 27, 2004
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 00:41:04 -0600, "Jeff H." wrote:

Well let’s see here…

Ever listen to an MP3? it must be agony for your super-senses since 80-90% of the raw data is discarded. Only pure Wav files for you! 🙂

I listened to an MP3 once. That’s why I listen to CDs now. 🙂

How about surfing the web… jpeg’s abound! It must seem like sandpaper on your eyeballs!

Done correctly, jpeg is OK for small images, which is what you get on the web (except where the designer’s ego outsmarts his common sense) But you wouldn’t put a jpg quality image in a print environment.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
PJ
Paul J Gans
Jul 27, 2004
Hecate wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 23:31:04 -0600, "Jeff H." wrote:

A conservativley compressed 3 meg jpeg from a 5 MP camera will be indiscernable from a 20 meg tiff from same when printed. Go try it now, printed side to side on same press sheet.

The real problem is that people do not understand the benefits/limitations of jpegs, and how to adjust the parameters.

Wrong paper stock, printer calibration, and registration problems will do far more damage to the final image than conservative jpeg compression.
Try printing both at 20×16 and see if you still think so. 🙂

That’s true. However what if the images are not destined to be printed at 20×16?

In other words this sort of thing is situational and there is no simple answer in all cases.

—- Paul J. Gans
M
MikeOrHecateWhoKnows
Jul 27, 2004
in article , Hecate at
wrote on 07/26/2004 5:35 PM:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:22:51 -0600, "Jeff H." wrote:

Are these LZW compressed or not?
Yep.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

They are?
M
MikeOrHecateWhoKnows
Jul 27, 2004
in article , Hecate at
wrote on 07/26/2004 5:37 PM:

Posters/billboards… the LPI & DPI being reduced would cause a loss of fidelity much worse than artifacts, true?
No, there is a level below
which it just looks like crap at any dpi., although I
don’t know what that is. 😉



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Nice that you admit your limitations.
M
MikeOrHecateWhoKnows
Jul 27, 2004
in article , Hecate at
wrote on 07/26/2004 5:40 PM:

How about surfing the web… jpeg’s abound! It must seem like sandpaper on your eyeballs!

Done correctly, jpeg is perfectly acceptable …
I would put a jpg quality image in a print environment.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Nice to know that about you.
R
Roberto
Jul 27, 2004
Speaking of low res, it’s gotta be extra challenging to print on fabrics, doing t-shirts etc with quasi-photos on them. Do these guys put out at 20-30 LPI? The substrate can only hold a min. practical dot size…

JD

Nope. A lot of larger size images are printed on a sliding scale. A2/A1 is often printed at 240dpi or less. It has more to do with the viewing distance than anything else. However, there is a level below which it just looks like crap at any dpi. 😉



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
R
Roberto
Jul 27, 2004
I’d say using jpeg for small images is a worst case compared to print, due to how the compression matrix appears to work when shoehorning hues.

kinda on-topic: How many of us tear our hair out seeing paletted images saved as jpegs instead of gifs! 🙂 I’ve seen big company sites with 2 color logos that are saved as jpeg, instead of gif. To top it off, the jpeg artifacts are there, showing they probably saved at 50% compression. Ahhh!

JD
H
HecateOnABadDay
Jul 27, 2004
in article wrote
on 07/26/2004 9:22 PM:

To me, a crappy jpeg of a flower is better than a perfectly rendered weed.

So what?
R
Roberto
Jul 27, 2004
128kbps is torture 160kbps is tollerable and 192 kbps I can’t tell the differance. Then again the limiting factor may be my speakers which are good but not exactly audiophile quality.

*** I agree with you here…

How about surfing the web… jpeg’s abound! It must seem like sandpaper
on
your eyeballs!

How right you are. There are tons of horibble jpegs out there on the net. Color casts, over compression, bad lighting and much more.

*** I agree with you. All points you’d mentioned can be adjusted/corrected by skilled people. 9/10 who have PS don’t know or even want to know how to make those adjustments… no time, "just do it".

You guys are nutz, knocking yourselves out over hair-splitting details
that no-one sees once the job is reproduced.

If your clients don’t notice fine. But I have had to deal with a few to
many
artists who do notice the difference and I had to learn to see the difference. Most people can learn to see the differance. However, even
those
who haven’t learned the difference when presented with side by side comparisons of the exact same image but one is a tiff and the other is a jpeg. Gennerally do pick the tiff as the better picture even though very
few
of them could say why.

*** I’d agree with that. The problem as I see it is that some comparisons use horribly compressed jpegs in the evaluation instead of 0-5%.

JD
R
Roberto
Jul 27, 2004
I wished that MP3 sounded as good as jpg looks. The 80-90% that’s being filtered out, is just as much WAV as the rest. MP3 is just a thumbnail of the real thing.

*** Strangley enough, I used that example since my first field out of High school was recording engineering / live sound. I can hear the "artifacts" in the 10-15k range at 44.1 128k, but at higher bitrates, even though I know lots of data has been discarded , it can still sound quite good. It’s all based on psychoacoustics, and the jpeg guys had to make decisions on what goes (in the visual arena) without subconscious objection.

All ‘life’ has been taken out, and you’re left with a flat
line of sound. You won’t find a professional on sound working with MP3, other than mabye using it for a sample to send by mail.

*** EXACTLY!!!! This is my point… but let’s continue with this train of thought.

Engineers in that field knock themselves out using esoteric gear to get the "best quality", everyone wants to do their best, right?

But at the end of the day, any artist will soon find (if not already) that the vast majority of consumers will be ultimately perceiving their expression as an MP3, not the pure file they presented. 80%-90% of the detail is out the window – technically. It should be heartbreaking, but an MP3 CAN sound really good.

Imagine working hard on a painting. Looks great. Want lots of people to see it in a practical way? It goes on your website as a jpeg, carefully prepared by you using judicial compression adjustments. 9 out of 10 fail to understand the adjustments, this is my beef.

Here’s the rub…. In my world, I’d rather listen to great tune on a hissy, worn out cassette tape than any pristine Reason-generated crap that seems to top the charts these days, topped with cop-killing rambling by angry auctioneers with poor grammer.

In the visual world, anyone – everyone – can create content. There are far more weeds than flowers.

To me, a crappy jpeg of a flower is better than a perfectly rendered weed.

JD
R
Roberto
Jul 27, 2004
Attention:
World To "Jeff H." …
Not everybody uses a "3MP (consumer-level) Digital Camera."

***I know, I was being facetious, using a worst case example…

Obviously you’re doing some very high-end stuff here. Would you say 1 PS user out of 100 works with these image sizes? Maybe less? Not being snarky, just being real. Maybe your’re into satellite imagery or something… 🙂

Many of us following this thread appreciate your effort putting that info together, quite interesting!

When you say B/W below, you mean greyscale I expect (dividing 24 bit/3).

In your last sentence, suggesting that single files 500 meg – 2 gig files "not really all that rare.", maybe for you! But for the VAST majority of users?

After scanning, & a putting one 500 meg image on a CD – who’s able to rip this puppy? 🙂

Best wishes,

JD
R
Roberto
Jul 27, 2004
FYI,

When I work the way I do, it isn’t so I can save time to twiddle my thumbs & sit on my ass… it’s to be more productive. My workflow will not handle 100 meg images and remain profitable for what I do.

A lot of things must frustrate you – some would say cars are poorly made compared to years past, craftsmanship in many fields isn’t the same as 50 years ago.

If a carpenter uses "power tools" to build a house, is he "cheating", not sweating enough like his dad once did to accomplish the same thing?

For me it’s the end result that matters for my clients, not the quantity of effort expended to get there. That means the printed work in their hands, not zooming way in on an image and fretting because 3 pixels are off.

Sorry I made your heart beat fast for the wrong reasons!

JD

"DSphotog" wrote in message
FYI, I’m 60 and this guy’s attitude just pissed me off.

Sorry, lost it for a minute there.

Best,
Dave
R
Roberto
Jul 27, 2004
Jeff,

People with your attitude about their work are part of the reason that things in this (USA) country are going to Hell in a hand basket.

*** Maybe it’s a good time to mention I’m from another country. I didn’t realize I had this effect on American Productivity and Quality Control! 🙂

Instead of doing something to the best of their ability, they’re happy making it just
"good enough". And by all means, sell if for less. Guess who that lets
into
the market.

*** People from other countries like me? 🙂

*** At a certain point, there are diminishing returns on effort expended. It’s pointless to print 200 LPI on newsprint, the detail isn’t supported by the stock. It’s not that I don’t "care" about quality, quite the opposite. I’ve realize that there are MUCH more imporant issues down the chain to watch for than 0-5% jpeg compression, such as ensuring that the pressman is awake and not "letting the job run anyway" when the reg. is off 1/32 of an inch. I’ve spent endless hours making things as good as possible in pre-press, to see a goof staring out the window yapping on his cell phone while the ink well keys need to be adjusted. I take responsibility for my work from front to back. That means cracking the whip on issues that are far more volatile and noticable.

I encourage prepress people to watch a job run on a press. You will be enlightened and probably horrified. After that, they’ll either want to take more control or become a plumber.

I watched an old guy run a 2 sided process color job at one shop I freelance at on a single head GTO! Not the most productive way to print the job… However, there was also some tight registration…. HIS results combined with accurate equip. resulted in perfection on both sides. It was unreal! he was also able to calibrate a single plate at a time against a composite proof really well! The guy says he can’t get a steady job in a shop because he’s too old! A shame, his experience/ work ethic is priceless. Kids out of print school yawn until 11am at work since they were playing PS2 until 3 am. I know who I’d pick.

JD
R
Roberto
Jul 27, 2004
We’re all indundated with perfect and yet mediocre/forgetable imagery, because anyone can create content.

The most emotive and purposeful images off 2003 were very likely viewed as jpegs by the populace, not as pure files.

If people put as much concern into keeping/sharing meaningful images as they do everything else, we’d be leading richer lives.

The technical aspect of this thread is the "nuts & bolts" behind something which I think is much more important, and which will stand the test of time.

JD

To me, a crappy jpeg of a flower is better than a perfectly rendered
weed.
So what?
R
Roberto
Jul 27, 2004
Very true.

My point is that many refuse to use jpeg for irrational reasons without doing some tests of their own.

For years I was the same, everyone around me chanted "jpeg bad, tiff good".

I followed right along, until someone in this group 3-4 years ago proposed the "difference layer" test I’d mentioned.

jpegs 3 years ago were primarily horrible things 400 pixels across, compressed to harsh degrees.

Prepress people were routinely (still are) sent to sites for a company logo to put on the annual report. 🙂

Of course jpeg had a bad rap. Would Adobe include it in the Acrobat spec if it was unusable?

AFAIC, anthing beyond 25% compression should never be used. For print, 10% & less is indiscernable on any stock I’ve tried.

JD

In other words this sort of thing is situational and there is no simple answer in all cases.

—- Paul J. Gans
TB
The Buckster
Jul 27, 2004
DAMN.
I do a ton of ads that are published in national mags, 2-page spreads, on down to 2 inch ads, color and black & white.
My talent is more in design than it is in production, but I do it all myself anyway.
After following this thread, which has been very educational in more ways than one, I find myself rethinking my whole production process. I’m usually supplied with hi-res jpgs, that I use in my ads. The mags require 300dpi minimum (normal) hi-res pdf files and I usually give them 600. But the Tif file thing throws me.
My question on this would be, is it worth converting the supplied jpg to a tif file? Especially if I’m doing work on the files. And is a tif vs. jpg going to be a big deal when the mags are all printed on a web printer? (Donnelly publishing). I could see that it would matter with a sheet fed printer, but on a web one??
Thanks

"Jeff H." wrote in message
Very true.

My point is that many refuse to use jpeg for irrational reasons without doing some tests of their own.

For years I was the same, everyone around me chanted "jpeg bad, tiff
good".
I followed right along, until someone in this group 3-4 years ago proposed the "difference layer" test I’d mentioned.

jpegs 3 years ago were primarily horrible things 400 pixels across, compressed to harsh degrees.

Prepress people were routinely (still are) sent to sites for a company
logo
to put on the annual report. 🙂

Of course jpeg had a bad rap. Would Adobe include it in the Acrobat spec
if
it was unusable?

AFAIC, anthing beyond 25% compression should never be used. For print, 10%
&
less is indiscernable on any stock I’ve tried.

JD

In other words this sort of thing is situational and there is no simple answer in all cases.

—- Paul J. Gans

TB
The Buckster
Jul 27, 2004
If I wasn’t half deaf I might worry about the difference!

"Jeff H." wrote in message
I wished that MP3 sounded as good as jpg looks. The 80-90% that’s being filtered out, is just as much WAV as the rest. MP3 is just a thumbnail
of
the real thing.

*** Strangley enough, I used that example since my first field out of High school was recording engineering / live sound. I can hear the "artifacts"
in
the 10-15k range at 44.1 128k, but at higher bitrates, even though I know lots of data has been discarded , it can still sound quite good. It’s all based on psychoacoustics, and the jpeg guys had to make decisions on what goes (in the visual arena) without subconscious objection.

All ‘life’ has been taken out, and you’re left with a flat
line of sound. You won’t find a professional on sound working with MP3, other than mabye using it for a sample to send by mail.

*** EXACTLY!!!! This is my point… but let’s continue with this train of thought.

Engineers in that field knock themselves out using esoteric gear to get
the
"best quality", everyone wants to do their best, right?
But at the end of the day, any artist will soon find (if not already) that the vast majority of consumers will be ultimately perceiving their expression as an MP3, not the pure file they presented. 80%-90% of the detail is out the window – technically. It should be heartbreaking, but an MP3 CAN sound really good.

Imagine working hard on a painting. Looks great. Want lots of people to
see
it in a practical way? It goes on your website as a jpeg, carefully
prepared
by you using judicial compression adjustments. 9 out of 10 fail to understand the adjustments, this is my beef.

Here’s the rub…. In my world, I’d rather listen to great tune on a
hissy,
worn out cassette tape than any pristine Reason-generated crap that seems
to
top the charts these days, topped with cop-killing rambling by angry auctioneers with poor grammer.

In the visual world, anyone – everyone – can create content. There are far more weeds than flowers.

To me, a crappy jpeg of a flower is better than a perfectly rendered weed.
JD

H
HecateOnABadDay
Jul 27, 2004
in article , The Buckster at
wrote on 07/27/2004 7:35 AM:

If I wasn’t half deaf I might worry about the difference!

Maybe you should hire someone to listen to your music for you.
T
Tabasco1
Jul 27, 2004
My question on this would be, is it worth converting the supplied jpg to a tif file? Especially if I’m doing work on the files. And is a tif vs. jpg

The problem with using jpegs as a working format is that with each and every save you introduce artifacts/errors. Convert your jpeg to a tiff and you halt that process. If you at the end when your file is 100% the way you want go ahead and convert back to a jpeg.

Jpegs are not evil they are just not appropriate for everything.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com
MR
Mike Russell
Jul 27, 2004
The Buckster wrote:
DAMN.
I do a ton of ads that are published in national mags, 2-page spreads, on down to 2 inch ads, color and black & white. My talent is more in design than it is in production, but I do it all myself anyway.
After following this thread, which has been very educational in more ways than one, I find myself rethinking my whole production process. I’m usually supplied with hi-res jpgs, that I use in my ads. The mags require 300dpi minimum (normal) hi-res pdf files and I usually give them 600.
But the Tif file thing throws me.
My question on this would be, is it worth converting the supplied jpg to a tif file? Especially if I’m doing work on the files. And is a tif vs. jpg going to be a big deal when the mags are all printed on a web printer? (Donnelly publishing). I could see that it would matter with a sheet fed printer, but on a web one??

It does no harm to stand back every once in a while and re-evaluate how you do things. Changing file format is one of the easier things to do, really, and providing TIFF CMYK II hope you’re not talking RGB!) files is certainly mainstream.

You are correct that web will be less likely to show any jpg artifacting than sheet feed. OTOH, if you are providing art, rather than photographs, I would switch horses and advocate using TIFFs. Jpeg was designed for photographs, and will tend to show "mosquitos" at the corners of line art. Also, file size is not that much of an issue these days, and you can pretty much fill the whole magazine from the content of one 50 cent CD.

As Jeff suggests, though, the best answer to this would be to try a job using tiffs instead of jpg, or a mixture of the two formats, and see if you can tell the difference. My guess is there will be no noticable difference, but I would not recommend jpeg compressing rasterized artwork. —

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

Thanks

"Jeff H." wrote in message
Very true.

My point is that many refuse to use jpeg for irrational reasons without doing some tests of their own.

For years I was the same, everyone around me chanted "jpeg bad, tiff good".

I followed right along, until someone in this group 3-4 years ago proposed the "difference layer" test I’d mentioned.
jpegs 3 years ago were primarily horrible things 400 pixels across, compressed to harsh degrees.

Prepress people were routinely (still are) sent to sites for a company logo to put on the annual report. 🙂

Of course jpeg had a bad rap. Would Adobe include it in the Acrobat spec if it was unusable?

AFAIC, anthing beyond 25% compression should never be used. For print, 10% & less is indiscernable on any stock I’ve tried.

JD

In other words this sort of thing is situational and there is no simple answer in all cases.

—- Paul J. Gans
TB
The Buckster
Jul 27, 2004
Thanks you guys.
Most of the ads I do are showcasing pictures of different product, so I think I will be trying to move towards tiffs.
Interesting stuff here, I appreciate it.
T

"Mike Russell" wrote in message
The Buckster wrote:
DAMN.
I do a ton of ads that are published in national mags, 2-page spreads, on down to 2 inch ads, color and black & white. My talent is more in design than it is in production, but I do it all myself anyway.
After following this thread, which has been very educational in more ways than one, I find myself rethinking my whole production process. I’m usually supplied with hi-res jpgs, that I use in my ads. The mags require 300dpi minimum (normal) hi-res pdf files and I usually give them 600.
But the Tif file thing throws me.
My question on this would be, is it worth converting the supplied jpg to a tif file? Especially if I’m doing work on the files. And is a tif vs. jpg going to be a big deal when the mags are all printed on a web printer? (Donnelly publishing). I could see that it would matter with a sheet fed printer, but on a web one??

It does no harm to stand back every once in a while and re-evaluate how
you
do things. Changing file format is one of the easier things to do,
really,
and providing TIFF CMYK II hope you’re not talking RGB!) files is
certainly
mainstream.

You are correct that web will be less likely to show any jpg artifacting than sheet feed. OTOH, if you are providing art, rather than photographs,
I
would switch horses and advocate using TIFFs. Jpeg was designed for photographs, and will tend to show "mosquitos" at the corners of line art. Also, file size is not that much of an issue these days, and you can
pretty
much fill the whole magazine from the content of one 50 cent CD.
As Jeff suggests, though, the best answer to this would be to try a job using tiffs instead of jpg, or a mixture of the two formats, and see if
you
can tell the difference. My guess is there will be no noticable
difference,
but I would not recommend jpeg compressing rasterized artwork. —

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

Thanks

"Jeff H." wrote in message
Very true.

My point is that many refuse to use jpeg for irrational reasons without doing some tests of their own.

For years I was the same, everyone around me chanted "jpeg bad, tiff good".

I followed right along, until someone in this group 3-4 years ago proposed the "difference layer" test I’d mentioned.
jpegs 3 years ago were primarily horrible things 400 pixels across, compressed to harsh degrees.

Prepress people were routinely (still are) sent to sites for a company logo to put on the annual report. 🙂

Of course jpeg had a bad rap. Would Adobe include it in the Acrobat spec if it was unusable?

AFAIC, anthing beyond 25% compression should never be used. For print, 10% & less is indiscernable on any stock I’ve tried.

JD

In other words this sort of thing is situational and there is no simple answer in all cases.

—- Paul J. Gans

D
DSphotog
Jul 27, 2004
PUBLIC APOLOGY TO JEFF

I owe you one. After reading more of your posts, my opinion has changed. I guess your initial posts must have triggered my knee-jerk reaction to all the slip-shod crap that I see now-a-days (that ought to date me).

Power tools used well are no problem (use ’em myself), my beef is with people who just do it "well enough" to get by without any regard to the user or respect for their own workmanship.

"Guess who that lets into the market" wasn’t referring to other countries particularly, just poorer quality cheap "stuff".

Best Regards,
Dave

PS – Top post intended
"Jeff H." wrote in message
Jeff,

People with your attitude about their work are part of the reason that things in this (USA) country are going to Hell in a hand basket.

*** Maybe it’s a good time to mention I’m from another country. I didn’t realize I had this effect on American Productivity and Quality Control!
🙂
Instead of doing something to the best of their ability, they’re happy making it just
"good enough". And by all means, sell if for less. Guess who that lets
into
the market.

*** People from other countries like me? 🙂

*** At a certain point, there are diminishing returns on effort expended. It’s pointless to print 200 LPI on newsprint, the detail isn’t supported
by
the stock. It’s not that I don’t "care" about quality, quite the opposite. I’ve realize that there are MUCH more imporant issues down the chain to watch for than 0-5% jpeg compression, such as ensuring that the pressman
is
awake and not "letting the job run anyway" when the reg. is off 1/32 of an inch. I’ve spent endless hours making things as good as possible in pre-press, to see a goof staring out the window yapping on his cell phone while the ink well keys need to be adjusted. I take responsibility for my work from front to back. That means cracking the whip on issues that are
far
more volatile and noticable.

I encourage prepress people to watch a job run on a press. You will be enlightened and probably horrified. After that, they’ll either want to
take
more control or become a plumber.

I watched an old guy run a 2 sided process color job at one shop I
freelance
at on a single head GTO! Not the most productive way to print the job… However, there was also some tight registration…. HIS results combined with accurate equip. resulted in perfection on both sides. It was unreal!
he
was also able to calibrate a single plate at a time against a composite proof really well! The guy says he can’t get a steady job in a shop
because
he’s too old! A shame, his experience/ work ethic is priceless. Kids out
of
print school yawn until 11am at work since they were playing PS2 until 3
am.
I know who I’d pick.

JD

H
Hecate
Jul 28, 2004
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:52:27 -0600, "Jeff H." wrote:

Speaking of low res, it’s gotta be extra challenging to print on fabrics, doing t-shirts etc with quasi-photos on them. Do these guys put out at 20-30 LPI? The substrate can only hold a min. practical dot size…
That’s not something I’ve done – not in my market area which is mainly concerned with fine art or commercial. I would have thought though, given that the images used for that are usually not very detailed that a lower lpi would obtain.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
Jul 28, 2004
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 03:31:06 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

Try printing both at 20×16 and see if you still think so. 🙂

That’s true. However what if the images are not destined to be printed at 20×16?

In other words this sort of thing is situational and there is no simple answer in all cases.
Absolutely. Of course, it doesn’t change the fact that jpg is lossy and that starting with a large lossless file that you can repurpose for any use makes much more sense.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
Jul 28, 2004
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:28:54 -0600, "Jeff H." wrote:

Of course jpeg had a bad rap. Would Adobe include it in the Acrobat spec if it was unusable?

it’s not that it’s unusable, just that it’s uses differ. It’s fine for mailing, web use and so forth.

AFAIC, anthing beyond 25% compression should never be used. For print, 10% & less is indiscernable on any stock I’ve tried.
I’d be interested to see how you get a percentage compression with PS when the compression values are not percentages.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
Jul 28, 2004
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:22:19 -0600, "Jeff H." wrote:

but an MP3 CAN sound really good.

Can you please name one? Thanks 😉

Imagine working hard on a painting. Looks great. Want lots of people to see it in a practical way? It goes on your website as a jpeg, carefully prepared by you using judicial compression adjustments. 9 out of 10 fail to understand the adjustments, this is my beef.

And the web is, of course, one of the places where you should use it.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
Jul 28, 2004
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:46:46 -0700, MikeOrHecateWhoKnows wrote:

in article , Hecate at
wrote on 07/26/2004 5:40 PM:

How about surfing the web… jpeg’s abound! It must seem like sandpaper on your eyeballs!

Done correctly, jpeg is perfectly acceptable …
I would put a jpg quality image in a print environment.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Nice to know that about you.
Not content with trying to pass yourself off as me, now you’re altering my posts as well. I believe that post-editing is something that ISPs are not happy about. Please continue giving me more ammunition to get your ISP to can you.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecate
Jul 28, 2004
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:08:00 -0600, "Jeff H." wrote:

When I work the way I do, it isn’t so I can save time to twiddle my thumbs & sit on my ass… it’s to be more productive. My workflow will not handle 100 meg images and remain profitable for what I do.
Jeff,

That’s fine, you know what you need. However, there’s one thing I’d point out. If you have 100 meg file you can turn it into anything from a fine art print to a web image. You can’t do that with a jpg. And that, for me, is the main reason for having large files. You can use them for any process.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
H
Hecates
Jul 28, 2004
in article , Hecate at
wrote on 07/27/2004 5:28 PM:

I believe in pink bunnies on the moon, and that is something that ISPs are not happy about.

Your beliefs are not an ISP’s business. But you check with them anyway and see what they tell you.
R
Roberto
Jul 28, 2004
Jeff,

That’s fine, you know what you need. However, there’s one thing I’d point out. If you have 100 meg file you can turn it into anything from a fine art print to a web image.

*** Very true for some types of work. As someone else pointed out, it depends on the purpose/intent for the images.

Most of what I’m doing isn’t fine art…. it’s meat & potatoes business stuff in dimensions under 11" x 17". Sometimes it’s Mickey Mouse 2 color projects like flyers. The money’s flyin’, whom I to argue? 🙂 Half my work is down in the trenches stuff, not up in a tower where everyone dresses/eats wierd and only use Macs, while listening to Bjork & Enya. 🙂 Not much glamour in my world , no fine art here. 🙂 But while the work seems plentiful, creativity awards for intentional graphic complexity will remain beyond my grasp. I’m OK with that.

A picture of a vacuum cleaner, or slab of steak…. not stored here at 100 meg. 🙂

CU,

JD
R
Roberto
Jul 28, 2004
but an MP3 CAN sound really good.

Can you please name one? Thanks 😉

*** The songs will vary by personal taste, but at 256k per sec bitrate, MP3’s still have better dynamic range and freq. response than many other top mediums a decade ago. I’d suggest some Slipknot, the Carpenters, Toto, or Brad Paisley.

Imagine working hard on a painting. Looks great. Want lots of people to
see
it in a practical way? It goes on your website as a jpeg, carefully
prepared
by you using judicial compression adjustments. 9 out of 10 fail to understand the adjustments, this is my beef.

And the web is, of course, one of the places where you should use it.

*** Ultimately this jpeg will "sell" the real product. A good jpeg is up to the task of inspiring others to whip out their wallets.

JD
TB
The Buckster
Jul 28, 2004
I believe this thread is becoming a bit "elitist".

"Jeff H." wrote in message
but an MP3 CAN sound really good.

Can you please name one? Thanks 😉

*** The songs will vary by personal taste, but at 256k per sec bitrate, MP3’s still have better dynamic range and freq. response than many other
top
mediums a decade ago. I’d suggest some Slipknot, the Carpenters, Toto, or Brad Paisley.

Imagine working hard on a painting. Looks great. Want lots of people to
see
it in a practical way? It goes on your website as a jpeg, carefully
prepared
by you using judicial compression adjustments. 9 out of 10 fail to understand the adjustments, this is my beef.

And the web is, of course, one of the places where you should use it.

*** Ultimately this jpeg will "sell" the real product. A good jpeg is up
to
the task of inspiring others to whip out their wallets.

JD

H
Hecate
Jul 29, 2004
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:08:40 -0600, "Jeff H." wrote:

A picture of a vacuum cleaner, or slab of steak…. not stored here at 100 meg. 🙂

CU,
LOL!



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
R
Roberto
Jul 30, 2004
Not everyone uses PS all the time, though I do in some cases.

JD

I’d be interested to see how you get a percentage compression with PS when the compression values are not percentages.



Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui
R
Roberto
Jul 30, 2004
My question on this would be, is it worth converting the supplied jpg to a tif file?

*** If you do multiple saves, you could use tiff in the meantime. jpeg compression IS permanent once applied to a file. The degree of compression chosen before someone sent it to you will vary widely.

Sure there are tools like Image Doctor that can help save a pic with artifacts, but AFAIC it’s a band-aid to a problem that doesn’t need to exist. That problem is people who have a some kind of natural instinct to over-compress jpegs when they create them.

How many times do you open and resave the same file? Think carefully about this… In my case;

1. open the file.

2. crop/color correct/sharpen. Mask if required.

3. save file.

4. open same file again, to do…. what? What raster files sent to you will take more than one sitting to edit and prepare for your needs?

One prob I often see is people who don’t know better doing typsetting in Photoshop, and while having 2000.00 worth of graphics apps on their system, often don’t understand the diff between vector objects & raster images. Text should really remain vectors from beginning to end. The files will be smaller, & the output better. Vector shapes/fonts are output at the resolution of the output device.

Especially if I’m doing work on the files. And is a tif vs. jpg
going to be a big deal when the mags are all printed on a web printer? (Donnelly publishing). I could see that it would matter with a sheet fed printer, but on a web one??

*** web printers CAN output good quality, look at expensive magazines. Some clinchers are the quality of the paper stock, the LPI chosen when separating, the skill & concern of the pressman. Printing on newsprint at a much lower LPI, lots of detail is gone through "dot gain" problems, the lower brightness of the stock will mute the colors, plus other problems. Poor paper can destroy lots of effort up to that point.

JD
B
BF
Jul 31, 2004
alloowishus wrote:
I am using Photoshop 7, and I am saving jpgs and they always look really bad, no matter what quality I save them as, any idea why?, here is a link to some example pics:

http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=91&amp ;startrow=6#pics
I have used other versions of photoshop and they have never looked this bad. Please help, thanks.
After looking at one picture I knew it wasn’t PS 7. Wow.
G
grumpster
Aug 1, 2004
What camera are you using? To begin with the flash being on camera isn’t helping any.
"BF" wrote in message
alloowishus wrote:
I am using Photoshop 7, and I am saving jpgs and they always look really bad, no matter what quality I save them as, any idea why?, here is a link to some example pics:

http://www.beautifulsenseless.com/pics.cfm?categoryid=91&amp ;startrow=6#pics
I have used other versions of photoshop and they have never looked this bad. Please help, thanks.
After looking at one picture I knew it wasn’t PS 7. Wow.

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections