What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

A rumour but then I have been right twice before

Austin,
Whilst there is no disputing your maths in regard to image size the reality is not quite as simple.

If I scan an image at 300 dpi it never equals the same image scanned at 1200 dpi and then later converted to 300 dpi. Similarly if you take a digital photograph at your camera’s lowest resolution and then compare it to an identical photograph taken at the highest resolution which has then been compressed to the same file size, the second photo will be much better.

The higher the density of pixels per area at the point of capture, whether in camera or scanned the better the quality of the image no matter what the printer’s resolution is.

Regards the viewfinder speculation; I had considered a secondary optical LCD, but discountd it because of the cost and small image size. Similarly, a small zoom viewfinder such as on the G2 would not really suffice. But the larger high eyepoint viewfinders that you used to see on compact cameras would do for 90% of the time. Anyway, that is just speculation.........

Clive
 
Clive,

> Whilst there is no disputing your maths in regard to image size the > reality is not quite as simple.

I have done as I say, and it works fine. If you disagree, please show me an ex&le that shows this.

> If I scan an image at 300 dpi it never equals the same image scanned > at 1200 dpi and then later converted to 300 dpi.

Of course. You should be scanning at your scanners native optical resolution, and NOT converting to any PPI for printing, assuming inkjet. You should simply change the output size without res&ling the image, and let the PPI fall where it may...and print that. This, typically, providing you have 240 or above PPI to the printer, gives the best results.

> Similarly if you take > a digital photograph at your cameras lowest resolution and then > compare it to an identical photograph taken at the highest resolution > which has then been compressed to the same file size, the second photo > will be much better.

I'm not sure what your point is. You should take images with your digital camera at the highest resolution that the sensor optically provides, and use a lossless file format. This, undoubtdly, gives you the best image results. No one has ever disputed this, and should be assumed as being the method of capture for the highest image quality, if not evey using raw image format, which, if you have a better Bayer pattern reconciliation program, may in fact give you a better image than the one inherent in the camera.

> The higher the density of pixels per area at the point of capture, > whether in camera or scanned the better the quality of the image no > matter what the printers resolution is.

No. There reaches a point where there is no perceptible improvement in image quality (for a given size/media output) using more information, period. What degrades the image the most is interpolation/decimation. Some algorithms are better than others. But, my point is, if you can not perceive any (reasonable) improvement in an image printed at 240 PPI vs an image printed at 360 PPI, then there is no use in having more data. Some images, the difference is perceptible, but not all, but as a blanket statement that more is better, that is simply not true.

I have done thousands of prints and have been doing so for many years, what I say has held true for me, and for many hundreds of other people as well. This is where the term "significant" improvement is subjective. For those that carry around a loupe, they MAY see some very minute improvement...and also keep in mind, most prints above 4x6 are mounted behind glass...which further degrades any possible perception of improvement. Also, scanning is different that direct digital image capture.

Again, the physical results speak for themselves.

Regards,

Austin
 
Austin,

I agree that most people won't make a print greater than 8x10 but this forum is about Contax/Zeiss not Nikon or Canon!! I want the option to make larger prints, that what's attracted me to Zeiss and that's what I demand from by film-based system.

Until Contax can really compete with film which is not that far away I will keep my G system and dabble with digital compacts.

To change subjects a little, I wonder if it would be possible to have a digital option so that you can recreate the colors/contrasts of the different types of film emulsions as well as the different lens manufacturers? My first color slide film was ORWA (former East Germany) and I used a Praktica camera (also GDR). The combination produced distinctive results.

Jim Hully Boston, MA
 
> Austin,

When I print using Adoble, I always change the Image Size and the PPI (usually to 300) when printing. (Most of my prints are up to 11x14. These are with images taken with the ND and printed to an Epson 2200. You made the statement about not changing the PPI:

Would you please clarify the following statement you made:

"Of course. You should be scanning at your scanners native optical resolution, and NOT converting to any PPI for printing, assuming inkjet. You should simply change the output size without res&ling the image, and let the PPI fall where it may...and print that. This, typically, providing you have 240 or above PPI to the printer, gives the best results.".

How about when shooting with an ND? I understand about scanning at the optical DPI ... but should'nt I be res&ling and changing the PPI with images taken with the ND?

Thanks,

Michael.
 
Hi Michael,

> When I print using Adoble, I always change the Image Size and the PPI > (usually to 300) when printing. (Most of my prints are up to 11x14.

That typically won't give you the best results. If you didn't res&le, what would the PPI end up being? As long as it's over 240, your output should be better. The deal is, when you res&le to 300, you are interpolating the image once. When you send that 300 to the printer, it res&les it again before doing the dither, and therefore, you have double interpolated the image and that would give you unnecessary image degredation.

> These are with images taken with the ND and printed to an Epson 2200.

OK, then you are actually ups&ling the image, not downs&ling it. Try printing an image without res&ling, then one with...but make sure your uns&led output is 240 or higher, and let me know what you think of the results.

> You made the statement about not changing the PPI:

That statement was more so for scanning, BTW.

> > Would you please clarify the following statement you made: > > "Of course. You should be scanning at your scanners native optical > resolution, and NOT converting to any PPI for printing, assuming > inkjet. You should simply change the output size without res&ling > the image, and let the PPI fall where it may...and print that. This, > typically, providing you have 240 or above PPI to the printer, gives > the best results.". > > How about when shooting with an ND? I understand about scanning at the > optical DPI ... but should'nt I be res&ling and changing the PPI > with images taken with the ND?

It depends...I'd suggest the experiment I suggested above, print the largest image you can at 240PPI and see how you like it.

Regards,

Austin
 
>Austin,

Thanks. I know that when I open an ND image in Adobe it always shows the image size to be at 72 PPI. I use 300, becuase, I have several printers, including a color laser, and find that 300 seems to work well with all of them. I have read that 300 vs 240 ... that 240 might give better results, but I can not see a diference. I will, though experiment as you suggested, trying to print some larger size images.

Thanks.

michael.
 
Hi Michael,

> Thanks. I know that when I open an ND image in Adobe it always shows > the image size to be at 72 PPI.

That's an arbitrary number would be my guess, and really means nothing.

> I use 300, becuase, I have several > printers, including a color laser, and find that 300 seems to work > well with all of them. I have read that 300 vs 240 ... that 240 might > give better results, but I can not see a diference. I will, though > experiment as you suggested, trying to print some larger size images.

Let me know what the results of your tests are!

When I talk about printers, and my experience, I am talking about Epson inkjet printers.

Regards,

Austin
 
Austin, Let me ask you a scanning questions.

If I need a 8x10 print, I always scan my film at 300dpi, and set the output size to 8x10. It gives a reasonable size file that I can work with in my computer. In this case, I did not scan at my scanners native optical resolution. The result seems to be good with 4x5 film with my Epson 2450 flatbed scanner and Epson printer.

Am I doing something wrong? I have tried various way to scan. But sometimes it gave a huge file that is it hard to deal with and did not seem to give better result. Please advise.
 
Hi Albert,

> If I need a 8x10 print, I always scan my film at 300dpi, and set the > output size to 8x10. It gives a reasonable size file that I can work > with in my computer. In this case, I did not scan at my scanners > native optical resolution. The result seems to be good with 4x5 film > with my Epson 2450 flatbed scanner and Epson printer. > > Am I doing something wrong? I have tried various way to scan. But > sometimes it gave a huge file that is it hard to deal with and did not > seem to give better result. Please advise.

I understand the issue with large files. I don't believe you're doing anything "wrong", but that doesn't mean you can't possibly get better results. Have you tried:

1) scanning at the optical resolution of the scanner

2) resizing without res&ling and allowing the PPI to the printer fall where it may...

and comparing that to your current method? If you don't see a difference, than it may be that the output you're currently getting is as good as your equipment or personal preference allows for.

Regards,

Austin
 
there's another point with a real TTL-finder against the LCD :

LCD-viewfinder are never as quick when you have to turn around with the SLR and as mentioned before never as sharp and clear if you want to focus manually (which I'm doing with much joy)

Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top