Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 16, 2014, 7:04 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 234
Default

Hi all,
Alright ... well I ran the picture through my scanner, at both 300 and 600 dpi, and stitched it with PSE6, which did a beautiful job. My initial impression is that the scanner does a much nicer job than my camera.
So, I have both images now, but don't know how to decide which one I should put the effort into restoring.... 300 or 600dpi. There is a huge difference in file size .... 8mbs vs. 34mbs, which probably doesn't matter. How can I determine which one is best? (They look about the same on my monitor.) By the way.... I was off on my initial measurements. I want to blow this thing up to 19"x14", oval
...... john
P.S. The photography shop said that my original attempt at restoring the picture from the camera image is probably not good enough for an 19"x14" work.
Shinnen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2014, 8:49 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

I have two 8x10 photos on the wall of my dining room. They are both of my wife competing in Dressage. One was shot by a professional on film, and the other is from a 3MP Nikon Coolpix 880, cropped to about 2MP.

You need an eye loupe to tell which is which.

But enlarging a 12MP image to 19x14 is probably pushing it.

Are the files JPEG or something else? If they're JPEG, I'd stick with the larger, higher resolution image. If they're TIFF or PNG, or you can convert them to PSD or other lossless format, you might get away with the smaller, lower resolution one.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2014, 10:07 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,229
Default

When you open to your editor and expand the images to 100%, do they still look the same? If so, you are not gaining anything by using the larger file.
Based on work I have done for my local library and historical society, the resolution of a photo from that era is not going to be all that high anyway, and the only way you are going to make a high resolution image from it, is to go over it pixel by pixel. Most people will want to retain the antique look, and graininess of the original, so the biggest part of the restoration is in getting rid of tears, stains,and scratches.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2014, 10:21 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 234
Default

Hi TCav,
Well, I saved them both in jpg, from the scanner. It was either that or pdf. When I stitched them I could have saved them as PSDs (or some other lossless) but I figured 100% quality jpg would be just as good.) Using the lossless format is so that the quality doesn't suffer after repeated editing? Am I right?
OK. I may as well take my best shot. I'll restitch the 600dpi jpegs and save it in tiff or png or psd, and do my repairs on that.
...... john
Shinnen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2014, 10:29 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 234
Default

Hi Brian,
When I open my pictures, they are about 10%, with the 300dpi format. Expanding them to 100% makes a huge increase in size. (I had tried a 600dpi image, but my favourite editor, Helicon Filter, could not handle them) Previously I sent a repaired photo, taken with my camera to the photo shop, and they said that it would probably 'not' be good enough for expansion to 19"x14", so now I will try to restore it using one of the three formats that PSE6 allowed me to generate from the stitched parts. These are: jpeg, png, and tif (psd would not open in Helicon Filter). They are all 5000x6550 pixels (32.7mp), 300dpi, and 24 bit depth except for the png and psd, which are 32 bit.
So, I have three questions .......................
1. Which format should I use: png, tif, or jpeg?
2. What's the importance of bit depth?
3. I was allowed to save the png in either interlaced or non interlaced. What's the difference?
Thanks,
...... john
Shinnen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2014, 1:30 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,229
Default

1. If you intend editing it all in one session, it probably won't matter, as long as your print shop can open the file. If you will work on it in sessions, then the .tif would probably be best.
2. Bit depth is related to the number of unique colors available, or the shades of grey in a B&W image. If you picture is B&W, which is likely from the date of it, you could save quite a bit of file size by converting it to grey scale. Should also speed up processing time for edits, as well.
3. I'm not sure, but think interlace is just a way to speed up the viewing of the file. The .png algorithms tend to be slow compared to .jpg, which is nearly instantaneous.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2014, 5:20 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

I suggest PSD, which is Photoshop's native format. It's lossless and supports working with multiple sessions. It's also likely that your printer can use it as well, so there's no reason to convert it to something else.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2014, 5:25 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

Also, even if the original is a B&W photo, it's likely to have some sort of patina. If you want to preserve it, you'll need to go with full color instead of grayscale.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2014, 11:12 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 234
Default

Hi Brian/TCav,
The picture is B&W but has been touched up with some colour. I will ask the photo shop which format they prefer, and go from there.
Thanks,
..... john
P.S. It's an interesting picture. Much of their clothing has been over drawn, to stand out more. She's standing and he's sitting. The bottom of her dress and his shoes are heavily lined in.
Shinnen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2014, 6:37 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,229
Default

I have some photos from a little later than yours which were hand tinted at the time, and of course, the dyes have faded quite a bit. If it is that type of tinting, you probably should keep it that way.
There is quite a bit of info in the Extreme Makeover forum, though it may take some searching, as only a few people describe the edits they did.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:41 PM.