high quality images for magazines?

J
Posted By
jean
Dec 28, 2003
Views
1770
Replies
28
Status
Closed
I have a nikon D1 and I’m shooting images of oil paintings. These images will be used for having slides made from digital and for a high quality image for use in magazines.
Does anyone have a tutorial on how to make a high quality image in Photoshop that would be suitable for this?
What I am doing so far is shoot in the raw mode, convert the image, transfer it to Photoshop. Make adjustments and save it as .tif. I’m getting a .tif image that is about 20 meg and looks really good on the computer, prints well also but I’m not sure it is good enough for slides, etc. Any advice appreciated.
Jean

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

T
tacitr
Dec 28, 2003
I have a nikon D1 and I’m shooting images of oil paintings. These images will be used for having slides made from digital and for a high quality image for use in magazines.

Most magazines prefer a transparency, which they will scan on a drum scanner, or a digital file created from a transparency, or a digital file created from a professional-grade digital camera (which typically run tens of thousands of dollars). An image from a consumer-grade camera is not typical for "high quality" reproduction.

I would suggest you check with the magazine in question, and find out what their requirements are.

What I am doing so far is shoot in the raw mode, convert the image, transfer it to Photoshop. Make adjustments and save it as .tif. I’m getting a .tif image that is about 20 meg and looks really good on the computer, prints well also but I’m not sure it is good enough for slides, etc.

A 35mm slide shot at 4K resolution on a slide imager is usually made from an RGB image that is 4096×2732 pixels. This corresponds to a 32MB RGB image. A 20MB image will not produce the maximum possible quality when imaged to a 35mm slide, though it should be acceptable.

However, if your goal is to get the oil painting on a slide, you’d likely be better off taking the picture with a film-based camera than a digital camera. In fact, there are professional photo studios that specialize in doing exactly this. A drum scan of a slide shot from the painting will give you a better digital image for professional publication than a digital image from a consumer digital camera.


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
A
Auspics
Dec 28, 2003
Converting from RAW to what?
PhotoShop CS can edit RAW directly.
Doug
———————–
"jean" wrote in message
I have a nikon D1 and I’m shooting images of oil paintings. These images will be used for having slides made from digital and for a high quality image for use in magazines.
Does anyone have a tutorial on how to make a high quality image in
Photoshop
that would be suitable for this?
What I am doing so far is shoot in the raw mode, convert the image,
transfer
it to Photoshop. Make adjustments and save it as .tif. I’m getting a
..tif
image that is about 20 meg and looks really good on the computer, prints well also but I’m not sure it is good enough for slides, etc. Any advice appreciated.
Jean

J
jean
Dec 28, 2003
Maybe I used the wrong term, my camera has a mode called nef. That mode is used to get the highest quality image but PhotoShop won’t open it. I use a program called Bibble that was developed for this to open it. Bibble comes with a plug in for PS so they work well together.
jean
"Techno Aussie" wrote in message
Converting from RAW to what?
PhotoShop CS can edit RAW directly.
Doug
———————–
"jean" wrote in message
I have a nikon D1 and I’m shooting images of oil paintings. These
images
will be used for having slides made from digital and for a high quality image for use in magazines.
Does anyone have a tutorial on how to make a high quality image in
Photoshop
that would be suitable for this?
What I am doing so far is shoot in the raw mode, convert the image,
transfer
it to Photoshop. Make adjustments and save it as .tif. I’m getting a
.tif
image that is about 20 meg and looks really good on the computer, prints well also but I’m not sure it is good enough for slides, etc. Any advice appreciated.
Jean

B
bhilton665
Dec 28, 2003
From: "jean"

Maybe I used the wrong term, my camera has a mode called nef. That mode is used to get the highest quality image but PhotoShop won’t open it.

"Nef" to Nikon is the same as "RAW" to most of the rest of the world. Not certain about your D1, but most likely it’s supported by the RAW converter in CS so you can open it directly in Photoshop now.
J
jean
Dec 28, 2003
"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
From: "jean"

Maybe I used the wrong term, my camera has a mode called nef. That mode
is
used to get the highest quality image but PhotoShop won’t open it.

"Nef" to Nikon is the same as "RAW" to most of the rest of the world. Not certain about your D1, but most likely it’s supported by the RAW converter
in
CS so you can open it directly in Photoshop now.

Ok, a dumb question, what is CS?
B
bhilton665
Dec 28, 2003
From: "jean"

Ok, a dumb question, what is CS?

Basically, Photoshop 8 but instead of 8 they called it CS, part of the "Creative Suite". It has the RAW converter built in, but check to see if it has support for your Nikon D1 before buying it, if that’s your main reason for getting it.
J
jean
Dec 29, 2003
"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
From: "jean"

Ok, a dumb question, what is CS?

Basically, Photoshop 8 but instead of 8 they called it CS, part of the "Creative Suite". It has the RAW converter built in, but check to see if
it
has support for your Nikon D1 before buying it, if that’s your main reason
for
getting it.

Thanks, I will check on that. I have 7 now but the converter would be a nice addition.
W
WharfRat
Dec 29, 2003
in article wrote
on 12/28/03 5:40 PM:

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
From: "jean"

Ok, a dumb question, what is CS?

Basically, Photoshop 8 but instead of 8 they called it CS, part of the "Creative Suite". It has the RAW converter built in, but check to see if
it
has support for your Nikon D1 before buying it, if that’s your main reason
for
getting it.

Thanks, I will check on that. I have 7 now but the converter would be a nice addition.
BTW – you can get the RAW plugin for 7 – if that is all you want.
A
Auspics
Dec 29, 2003
Its Photoshop 8 in drag. CS = Creative Suite.
If you can afford it, this is THE definitive editing program for digital photographers. Off colour pictures because you forgot to white balance for that quick shot inside, can be corrected with the new photo filters and the list of digital camera specific facilities makes Photoshop 7 look quite dated – for digital photographers. For those who still shoot on film and scan it into Photoshop, there is not all that much of a difference.

So to your original question… I sell my images shot with a Canon 10D (6 Mp) to quality magazines. When the editor of one asked once, what my camera was I lied and told him it was a 1D. He’s never asked since then and I’ve never volunteered the truth. I will add that I use decent glass lenses and there is no compromise in quality. One of my shots has been on the cover of a magazine. So yes, your Nikon output is quite good enough (probably technically better than I sell).
Doug

"jean" wrote in message
"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
From: "jean"

Maybe I used the wrong term, my camera has a mode called nef. That
mode
is
used to get the highest quality image but PhotoShop won’t open it.

"Nef" to Nikon is the same as "RAW" to most of the rest of the world.
Not
certain about your D1, but most likely it’s supported by the RAW
converter
in
CS so you can open it directly in Photoshop now.

Ok, a dumb question, what is CS?

J
john
Dec 29, 2003
In article <4gMHb.68497$>, "Techno
Aussie" wrote:

Its Photoshop 8 in drag. CS = Creative Suite.
If you can afford it, this is THE definitive editing program for digital photographers. Off colour pictures because you forgot to white balance for that quick shot inside, can be corrected with the new photo filters […]

Does it have what’s often called the White Board feature? That is a routine which fixes the ugly grey one gets from photographing white-backed images, for example white boards. (It’s got to be due to digicam underexposure.)

I do it now in PS7 using High Pass and color adjustments, but it still takes tweaking I can’t leave to the help.
F
Flycaster
Dec 29, 2003
"WharfRat" wrote in message
in article
wrote
on 12/28/03 5:40 PM:

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
From: "jean"

Ok, a dumb question, what is CS?

Basically, Photoshop 8 but instead of 8 they called it CS, part of the "Creative Suite". It has the RAW converter built in, but check to see
if
it
has support for your Nikon D1 before buying it, if that’s your main
reason
for
getting it.

Thanks, I will check on that. I have 7 now but the converter would be
a
nice addition.
BTW – you can get the RAW plugin for 7 – if that is all you want.

I thought they discontinued selling the plug-in when CS hit town, no?

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–
A
Auspics
Dec 29, 2003
When you open a camera RAW image, CS greets you with an ‘adjustment screen’ (the only words I can think of) where you can adjust the image before actually importing it into Photoshop. I find this feature almost worth the cost of CS!.

There are adjustments for exposure -under.over and colour temp along with a few others. You only get this option opening a camera RAW file. Do it with a ..JPG and it goes straight to CS but you can still make those adjustments way easier and more accurately than with 7.0 or 7.01.
Doug
—————–
"jjs" wrote in message
In article <4gMHb.68497$>, "Techno
Aussie" wrote:

Its Photoshop 8 in drag. CS = Creative Suite.
If you can afford it, this is THE definitive editing program for digital photographers. Off colour pictures because you forgot to white balance
for
that quick shot inside, can be corrected with the new photo filters

[…]
Does it have what’s often called the White Board feature? That is a routine which fixes the ugly grey one gets from photographing white-backed images, for example white boards. (It’s got to be due to digicam underexposure.)

I do it now in PS7 using High Pass and color adjustments, but it still takes tweaking I can’t leave to the help.
N
nomail
Dec 29, 2003
jjs wrote:

In article <4gMHb.68497$>, "Techno
Aussie" wrote:

Its Photoshop 8 in drag. CS = Creative Suite.
If you can afford it, this is THE definitive editing program for digital photographers. Off colour pictures because you forgot to white balance for that quick shot inside, can be corrected with the new photo filters […]

Does it have what’s often called the White Board feature? That is a routine which fixes the ugly grey one gets from photographing white-backed images, for example white boards. (It’s got to be due to digicam underexposure.)

I do it now in PS7 using High Pass and color adjustments, but it still takes tweaking I can’t leave to the help.

That’s a no brainer. Use Levels and move the right slider to where the histogram begins. Even your help can learn that in five seconds. Alternatively, you could learn how to expose correctly. 😉


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
J
john
Dec 29, 2003
In article <1g6qfrh.1ovb4gn1hf71riN%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

jjs wrote:

Does it have what’s often called the White Board feature? That is a routine which fixes the ugly grey one gets from photographing white-backed images, for example white boards. (It’s got to be due to digicam underexposure.)

I do it now in PS7 using High Pass and color adjustments, but it still takes tweaking I can’t leave to the help.

That’s a no brainer. Use Levels and move the right slider to where the histogram begins. Even your help can learn that in five seconds. Alternatively, you could learn how to expose correctly. 😉

You are being downright daffy if you think the ‘grey board’ is a trivial problem corrected by simply using levels that way. And the amount of digital crap we get from cameras without proper pre-or-post rendering of the exposure adjustments don’t help, either.
J
jean
Dec 29, 2003
Before I plonk down the $$’s can someone tell me for sure that CS will open ..nef files from the Nikon cameras?
I checked Adobe site, all I can find is that it opens RAW files from most digitals.
Thanks.

"Techno Aussie" wrote in message
When you open a camera RAW image, CS greets you with an ‘adjustment
screen’
(the only words I can think of) where you can adjust the image before actually importing it into Photoshop. I find this feature almost worth the cost of CS!.

There are adjustments for exposure -under.over and colour temp along with
a
few others. You only get this option opening a camera RAW file. Do it with
a
.JPG and it goes straight to CS but you can still make those adjustments
way
easier and more accurately than with 7.0 or 7.01.
Doug
—————–
"jjs" wrote in message
In article <4gMHb.68497$>, "Techno
Aussie" wrote:

Its Photoshop 8 in drag. CS = Creative Suite.
If you can afford it, this is THE definitive editing program for
digital
photographers. Off colour pictures because you forgot to white balance
for
that quick shot inside, can be corrected with the new photo filters

[…]
Does it have what’s often called the White Board feature? That is a routine which fixes the ugly grey one gets from photographing
white-backed
images, for example white boards. (It’s got to be due to digicam underexposure.)

I do it now in PS7 using High Pass and color adjustments, but it still takes tweaking I can’t leave to the help.

TT
Tom Thackrey
Dec 29, 2003
On 29-Dec-2003, "jean" wrote:

Before I plonk down the $$’s can someone tell me for sure that CS will open
.nef files from the Nikon cameras?
I checked Adobe site, all I can find is that it opens RAW files from most digitals.

NEF is a RAW format and CS opens it.


Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
tom (at) creative (dash) light (dot) com
do NOT send email to (it’s reserved for spammers)
B
bhilton665
Dec 29, 2003
From: "jean"

Before I plonk down the $$’s can someone tell me for sure that CS will open .nef files from the Nikon cameras?
I checked Adobe site, all I can find is that it opens RAW files from most digitals.

This site has some good info on how to use the Adobe RAW converter, with a list of supported cameras. Your Nikon D1 is on the list so you’re good to go.

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/camera-raw.sh tml

Bill
BS
Bob Shomler
Dec 29, 2003
jean wrote:
Before I plonk down the $$’s can someone tell me for sure that CS will open .nef files from the Nikon cameras?
I checked Adobe site, all I can find is that it opens RAW files from most digitals.
Thanks.

CameraRaw support is by camera model, not for any/all instances of a particular raw file type. For example, the Adobe CameraRaw plugin for Photoshop 7 would open .crw files from Canon’s D60 but not .crw files from the later 10D model (workaround was a published hack; 10D is now specifically supported in PS 8/CS). The PS7 CameraRaw documentation includes the Nikon D1, D1H, D1X and D100 in its list of supported camera types. Would expect this to follow through to CS.

Bob Shomler
www.shomler.com
J
jean
Dec 29, 2003
Thanks everyone for all the help!
jean
"Bob Shomler" wrote in message
jean wrote:
Before I plonk down the $$’s can someone tell me for sure that CS will
open
.nef files from the Nikon cameras?
I checked Adobe site, all I can find is that it opens RAW files from
most
digitals.
Thanks.

CameraRaw support is by camera model, not for any/all instances of a particular raw file type. For example, the Adobe CameraRaw plugin for Photoshop 7 would open .crw files from Canon’s D60 but not .crw files from the later 10D model (workaround was a published hack; 10D is now specifically supported in PS 8/CS). The PS7 CameraRaw documentation includes the Nikon D1, D1H, D1X and D100 in its list of supported camera types. Would expect this to follow through to CS.

Bob Shomler
www.shomler.com
W
westin*nospam
Dec 29, 2003
(Tacit) writes:

I have a nikon D1 and I’m shooting images of oil paintings. These images will be used for having slides made from digital and for a high quality image for use in magazines.

Most magazines prefer a transparency, which they will scan on a drum scanner, or a digital file created from a transparency, or a digital file created from a professional-grade digital camera (which typically run tens of thousands of dollars).

And which he is using. And professional-grade cameras start around $3K these days. "Tens of thousands" will get you a medium-format body, a great digital back, and an assortment of lenses.

An image from a consumer-grade camera is not typical for "high quality" reproduction.

Right. The D1 was Nikon’s first professional DSLR.

I would suggest you check with the magazine in question, and find out what their requirements are.

What I am doing so far is shoot in the raw mode, convert the image, transfer it to Photoshop. Make adjustments and save it as .tif. I’m getting a .tif image that is about 20 meg and looks really good on the computer, prints well also but I’m not sure it is good enough for slides, etc.

A 35mm slide shot at 4K resolution on a slide imager is usually made from an RGB image that is 4096×2732 pixels. This corresponds to a 32MB RGB image. A 20MB image will not produce the maximum possible quality when imaged to a 35mm slide, though it should be acceptable.

Assuming, of course, that you have a film recorder capable of that resolution. 4096 pixels across a 36mm frame is about 57 lp/mm, which is a challenge. High-quality films, for example, have an MTF of 50% or less at that resolution, even if the optics are perfect.

However, if your goal is to get the oil painting on a slide, you’d likely be better off taking the picture with a film-based camera than a digital camera. In fact, there are professional photo studios that specialize in doing exactly this. A drum scan of a slide shot from the painting will give you a better digital image for professional publication than a digital image from a consumer digital camera.

Again, he’s not using a consumer digital camera.

There’s a guy in the Kodak SLR forum on DPReview who is tickled with the results he’s getting shooting art with a DCS Pro 14n. There’s nothing magical about film.


-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
ML
Mike Latondresse
Dec 30, 2003
"Techno Aussie" wrote in
news:4gMHb.68497$:

I sell my images shot with a Canon
10D (6 Mp) to quality magazines. When the editor of one asked once, what my camera was I lied and told him it was a 1D. He’s never asked since then and I’ve never volunteered the truth.

I hope you crop the EXIF data.
W
westin*nospam
Dec 30, 2003
Mike Latondresse writes:

"Techno Aussie" wrote in
news:4gMHb.68497$:

I sell my images shot with a Canon
10D (6 Mp) to quality magazines. When the editor of one asked once, what my camera was I lied and told him it was a 1D. He’s never asked since then and I’ve never volunteered the truth.

I hope you crop the EXIF data.

Well, the 1D only delivers 4MP images, so probably nobody’s too savvy on that side.


-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
A
Auspics
Dec 30, 2003
Just ignore him John…
He probably doesn’t have much of a clue about digitals anyway. The Exposure adjustment of Camera RAW files in CS is like being able to pre-see the correct exposure. And anyway… What is correct?

I like to expose for the highlights. This sometimes leaves no shadow detail. I can pull up the shadow detail by masking the area and adjusting the levels. Hardly a function of "exposing correctly" when the contrast range is outside the sensor’s ability to record it.

Doug
—————————-
"jjs" wrote in message
In article <1g6qfrh.1ovb4gn1hf71riN%>,
(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

That’s a no brainer. Use Levels and move the right slider to where the histogram begins. Even your help can learn that in five seconds. Alternatively, you could learn how to expose correctly. 😉

You are being downright daffy if you think the ‘grey board’ is a trivial problem corrected by simply using levels that way. And the amount of digital crap we get from cameras without proper pre-or-post rendering of the exposure adjustments don’t help, either.
A
Auspics
Dec 30, 2003
Hey Jean…
Trust in the force!
What software company producing digital camera specific improvements to their flagship product would dare to exclude Nikon DSLRs from their compatibility list?
Photoshop CS supports direct RAW import of all the following Nikon cameras D1
D1H
D1X
D100
Coolpix 5700
Coolpix 5000 – with firmware version 1.7

Doug
————————————————-
"jean" wrote in message
Before I plonk down the $$’s can someone tell me for sure that CS will
open
.nef files from the Nikon cameras?
I checked Adobe site, all I can find is that it opens RAW files from most digitals.
Thanks.

"Techno Aussie" wrote in message
When you open a camera RAW image, CS greets you with an ‘adjustment
screen’
(the only words I can think of) where you can adjust the image before actually importing it into Photoshop. I find this feature almost worth
the
cost of CS!.

There are adjustments for exposure -under.over and colour temp along
with
a
few others. You only get this option opening a camera RAW file. Do it
with
a
.JPG and it goes straight to CS but you can still make those adjustments
way
easier and more accurately than with 7.0 or 7.01.
Doug
—————–
"jjs" wrote in message
In article <4gMHb.68497$>, "Techno
Aussie" wrote:

Its Photoshop 8 in drag. CS = Creative Suite.
If you can afford it, this is THE definitive editing program for
digital
photographers. Off colour pictures because you forgot to white
balance
for
that quick shot inside, can be corrected with the new photo filters

[…]
Does it have what’s often called the White Board feature? That is a routine which fixes the ugly grey one gets from photographing
white-backed
images, for example white boards. (It’s got to be due to digicam underexposure.)

I do it now in PS7 using High Pass and color adjustments, but it still takes tweaking I can’t leave to the help.

P
Phil
Dec 30, 2003
On 29 Dec 2003 17:46:46 -0500, westin*
(Stephen H. Westin) wrote:

(Tacit) writes:

slide, though it should be acceptable.

Assuming, of course, that you have a film recorder capable of that resolution. 4096 pixels across a 36mm frame is about 57 lp/mm, which is a challenge. High-quality films, for example, have an MTF of 50% or less at that resolution, even if the optics are perfect.
My understanding is that the magazines need the big-pixel images not so much for the added resolution they might provide, but to minimize moire artifacts from screen printing. That being the case, an existing image produced by today’s crop of 6 MPX cameras should yield acceptable results, provided they are upsampled with bicubic, GF, etc. to the size required. Hell, why can’t they just do this themselves?
A
Auspics
Dec 30, 2003
No exif data in TIFF files!
Doug

"Mike Latondresse" wrote in message
"Techno Aussie" wrote in
news:4gMHb.68497$:

I sell my images shot with a Canon
10D (6 Mp) to quality magazines. When the editor of one asked once, what my camera was I lied and told him it was a 1D. He’s never asked since then and I’ve never volunteered the truth.

I hope you crop the EXIF data.
A
Auspics
Dec 30, 2003
Full frame sensors are nice.
Doug

"Stephen H. Westin" <westin*> wrote in message
Mike Latondresse writes:

"Techno Aussie" wrote in
news:4gMHb.68497$:

I sell my images shot with a Canon
10D (6 Mp) to quality magazines. When the editor of one asked once, what my camera was I lied and told him it was a 1D. He’s never asked since then and I’ve never volunteered the truth.

I hope you crop the EXIF data.

Well, the 1D only delivers 4MP images, so probably nobody’s too savvy on that side.


-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
T
tacitr
Dec 30, 2003
Assuming, of course, that you have a film recorder capable of that resolution. 4096 pixels across a 36mm frame is about 57 lp/mm, which is a challenge. High-quality films, for example, have an MTF of 50% or less at that resolution, even if the optics are perfect.

Yes, which is exactly the point–when you reproduce quantized data in an analog medium, your goal should be to have the quantization of the data at a higher frequency than what can be recorded by the analog medium.

Most 35mm film recorders, including the one I use[1], are "4K" recorders, and image at 4096×2732 pixels to a 35mm transparency. many also have a "fast" mode which images 2048×1366 pixels. Imaging at the higher resolution, even though it exceeds the resolving power of the film, produces a visually superior image, for the same reason that printing on a press with a resolution of double the halftone screen frequency produces a visually superior image to printing at a resolution equal to the line screen frequency.

There’s a guy in the Kodak SLR forum on DPReview who is tickled with the results he’s getting shooting art with a DCS Pro 14n. There’s nothing magical about film.

There is nothing magical about film; I’m not emotionally invested in the superiority of film over digital. My comments reflect my experience.

I currently work with several fine art clients, including Charles essemer of Creative Fields Publishing[2], creating digital images intended for magazine, postcard, and fine-art lithograph reproduction.

When I first set out to create a series of digital scans of a number of paintings for this client, I took two paintings, and had the digital files made in three ways: in a studio using a Leaf Lumina medium-format digital camera, in a studio using a handheld digital camera (I don’t know what kind, though it was a very new model), and in a studio on 35mm transparency film, which was then scanned on a Hell Chromagraph drum scanner.

You can see representations of the two images I scanned online at

http://www.cfieldspub.com/fountain.html

and

http://www.cfieldspub.com/ssurf.html

I then had a giclee print made from each of the three digital files, and compared each print to the original.

What I found was that both digital-camera images were inferior to the drum-scanned transparency in two areas: color fidelity, and shadow detail. To be specific, both digital mages had throuble reproducing the teal tones in the image "September Surf," representing it as excessively greenish; and both digital images had difficulty with the areas of detail in the purples in the image "The Fountain."

A digital image was also created on the Leaf camera of the image found at

http://www.cfieldspub.com/gwalk.html

This image was not output to giclee, as it had very poor rendition of shadow detail when compared to the drum-scanned transparency of the same image. (This is to be expected; CCDs still have poor low-level response when compared to the photomultiplier tubes used in drum scanners, and even high-end CCD-based cameras and scanners still can’t match the performance of film and PMTs[3]).

Is there anything magical about film? No; it’s just had a 100-year head start on digital, that’s all. Will digital ever catch up? Oh, most certainly; the day is coming when digital will in fact be superior to film, but that day is not today.

Is there difference significant? Depends on the user’s needs and expectations. When i showed the results of my experiments to my client, he chose the drum-scanned image both times. Since my client is extremely demanding and has demonstrated that he can distinguish a drum-scanned transparency from a digital image, I have the paintings shot on film and scan them.

The advice I gave in this thread is based on the idea that the poster was seeking the highest possible quality, which I still maintain is obtainable by film and drum scanner rather than by digital imaging. That doesn’t mean digital imaging is no good, and indeed it may very well be suitable for many, or even most, users.

====
[1] I use a Montage film recorder: http://www.bitec.com/bfilm.html

[2] www.cfieldspub.com

[3] At least outside specialized scientific applications. This month’s Scientific American has an article about superconducting CCDs that are sensitive enough to respond to a single photon, making them as sensitive as PMTs, but they are still experimental, are astronomically expensive, and are useful only in certain astronomy and physics research applications.


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections