Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-15-2009, 11:41 AM   #16
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by photolady Quote
Then why does my printer state it will print more than at 300dpi? I know, prints from labs are only 300dpi. Guess I could print something at 300 and something at 2800 and see what the difference is, eh?
If it's an inkjet, how do you get a drop of ink 1/2800 of an inch? With professional printing equipment I have to account for about a 10% dot gain. Some of our presses will get down to about 5%. Dot gain is how much the ink will spread. A 1 inch dot will actually print 5-10% larger. It all depends on the paper. And inkjets depending on paper spread even more.

It's been a looonnnng time since I looked into it but I believe that 2800dpi is a total for all colors printed. For 4 color process it's 2800 / 4

Want really outrageous color? Print it on a hex printer. No it has nothing to do with spells. It's 6 color instead of the basic 4. Also called Hi-Fidelity printing. It adds a silver behind the blacks and an orangish color. Sports illustrated prints their covers with it.
A lot of the large format printers use 6 color also. Nice.

07-15-2009, 01:44 PM   #17
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
photolady95's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Cruising PentaxForums and watching your back.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,569
Original Poster
Mine is an Epson 6 color printer. I've only owned one 4 color printer and the prints were awful looking.

In your professional printing what do you actually print? It's not photos is it? When I worked in a print shop we printed brochures, business cards and signs, with a printing machine, and we didn't print pro photographers photos.
07-15-2009, 05:50 PM   #18
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by photolady Quote
Mine is an Epson 6 color printer. I've only owned one 4 color printer and the prints were awful looking.

In your professional printing what do you actually print? It's not photos is it? When I worked in a print shop we printed brochures, business cards and signs, with a printing machine, and we didn't print pro photographers photos.
I don't print to photographic materials. We go to sheet fed presses 2 color to 40" 6 color with aqueous coating. I go to "dry ink" digital machines. That's what the manufacturers call toner. I go to Xerox color boxes. I can print anything from a simple black and white letterhead to a 40" archival quality lithograph. I use 2 suppliers (local) that do print photographically. And when I have the time and patience I use their equipment to do my own work. I send them enough and they trust me enough to let me use all their stuff.

My job? Mostly graphics hence the handle "GraphicGr8s". When needed I run presses, do bindery, billing, bookkeeping, whatever needs done. I've been doing it for over 38 years now. The stuff I do with photoshop I did the old way. Cutting Ruby masks, multiple burns on plates and a bunch of trick stuff. And for over 10 years I had my own darkroom. Even messed with doing a mural a couple of times where I had to put it on the floor and use a mop to swab the chemicals to process. So I might know a little about it. As my signature shows I am a member of NAPP and have been since there start. These guys are the ones Adobe goes to for questions about Photoshop
07-15-2009, 06:26 PM   #19
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,470
Guys and gals

Don't confuse scan DPI with Print DPI.

I scan at 2880 dpi, but my image is only 24 x 36 mm (i.e. 1 frame of film)

the resultant image is about 10 MP. with 4000 by 2700 pixles (approximately)

that is why I don't talk about DPI at all once I have the image, I deal with pixels.

When I upload, I resize the image to about 25% with bi-cubic interpolation.

the resulting image is therefore about 1000 by 675 pixels and uploads easily and cleanly just look at anyting I have posted.

07-15-2009, 06:33 PM   #20
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,470
QuoteOriginally posted by photolady Quote
Ok, understood now Lowell. In PSE I can use all those you use to reduce or enlarge my scans too. I just never thought to reduce the size by percentages. I guess I need think pixels instead of inches.
that's right, youor upload image is really uploading pixels, the print DPI that the image is set at just scales things to different inches with the same pixels made bigger or smaller. changing print DPI does not reduce the actual image, except if you are re-saving jpegs, because you loose something each time you re-save.
QuoteQuote:
And you don't reduce the scanned dpi size through all this?
actually when I prepare a file to upload I re-save it with a different name, I NEVER save editing changes back over an origonal. I always want the ability to go back and get the same base data again (I was going to say "RAW data" but I shoot JPEGs)
07-15-2009, 07:24 PM   #21
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Guys and gals

Don't confuse scan DPI with Print DPI.

I scan at 2880 dpi, but my image is only 24 x 36 mm (i.e. 1 frame of film)

the resultant image is about 10 MP. with 4000 by 2700 pixles (approximately)

that is why I don't talk about DPI at all once I have the image, I deal with pixels.

When I upload, I resize the image to about 25% with bi-cubic interpolation.

the resulting image is therefore about 1000 by 675 pixels and uploads easily and cleanly just look at anyting I have posted.
Photoshop calls it ppi. But remember I said dpi/ppi at finished size. Are you printing "contact prints"? 24 x 36mm? without any interpolation you could decrease the ppi to 300 and get a great print at 9 x 13 inches or crop to 8 x 10

By the same token you could scan at 300 and have the scanner enlarge the image instead of having photoshop do it. That's my preferred workflow. Thing is ppi/dpi matters only at the finished output size. Whatever the output my be.
07-15-2009, 07:26 PM   #22
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
photolady95's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Cruising PentaxForums and watching your back.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,569
Original Poster
graphic, I was not doubting your ability in what you do. I'm sure you know what you're doing after all these years.

Lowell. When I tried your method my scanned photos came out very small. As in about 1 inch by 2 inches and that is not acceptable on my photos. And when I tried resizing by percentages, I got 19200 x

I don't resave jpegs. I can in TIFF format, reduce dpi to 600, tweak what needs tweaking, then if I'm planing to upload to web, I "save as" to jpg, but keep the original TIFF format. I never overwrite the original either.

Also since you shoot JPEGS, every time you save that jpg you lose quality. Right?

And today I did as graphic suggested and scanned my negatives at 300dpi, the result was, they are still noisy. Not as bad but still a lot of noise in them. But when I tried to resize to print size, they were also fuzzy. You can scan a print at 300dpi, but a negative at 300dpi just is not as good enough in quality as I like to see in my photos.
07-15-2009, 07:33 PM   #23
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by photolady Quote
graphic, I was not doubting your ability in what you do. I'm sure you know what you're doing after all these years.

Lowell. When I tried your method my scanned photos came out very small. As in about 1 inch by 2 inches and that is not acceptable on my photos. And when I tried resizing by percentages, I got 19200 x

I don't resave jpegs. I can in TIFF format, reduce dpi to 600, tweak what needs tweaking, then if I'm planing to upload to web, I "save as" to jpg, but keep the original TIFF format. I never overwrite the original either.

Also since you shoot JPEGS, every time you save that jpg you lose quality. Right?

And today I did as graphic suggested and scanned my negatives at 300dpi, the result was, they are still noisy. Not as bad but still a lot of noise in them. But when I tried to resize to print size, they were also fuzzy. You can scan a print at 300dpi, but a negative at 300dpi just is not as good enough in quality as I like to see in my photos.
When you tried Lowells method you scanned at 2880 and 24x36mm? You should have gotten a good scan out of that but small. In photoshop you would turn off resampling and decrease the ppi to 300. That should give you 9 x 13 inches at 300 ppi. A good quality for printing. The flipside would be to scan at 300 and have the scanner enlarge to 8 x 10. I must admit however I haven't scanned a negative in 5 years or more. And when I did it was medium format slides. Also I use a high end scanner but even my little $200 scanner does a great job when setup right.

07-15-2009, 07:33 PM   #24
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,470
QuoteOriginally posted by photolady Quote
graphic, I was not doubting your ability in what you do. I'm sure you know what you're doing after all these years.

Lowell. When I tried your method my scanned photos came out very small. As in about 1 inch by 2 inches and that is not acceptable on my photos. And when I tried resizing by percentages, I got 19200 x

I don't resave jpegs. I can in TIFF format, reduce dpi to 600, tweak what needs tweaking, then if I'm planing to upload to web, I "save as" to jpg, but keep the original TIFF format. I never overwrite the original either.

Also since you shoot JPEGS, every time you save that jpg you lose quality. Right?

And today I did as graphic suggested and scanned my negatives at 300dpi, the result was, they are still noisy. Not as bad but still a lot of noise in them. But when I tried to resize to print size, they were also fuzzy. You can scan a print at 300dpi, but a negative at 300dpi just is not as good enough in quality as I like to see in my photos.

Somewhere I think on your settings you are selecting the print DPI not the scan DPI. I can't prove this, without a copy of one of the scans, but if you scanned at 2880 dpi and got 1 inch by 2 inch, I would be willing to bet that your scanner is at 2880 dpi and when you set the selection you mad to 2880 dpi, what you actually did was made it size the print to exactly the size of the negative.

I'll send youa PM with my e-mail address
Edit note

You may not need to send the photo.

I played a little with an image in PSP, and found that if you want to change the ratio of print dpi and image dpi, at least in PSP you need to turn resampling OFF when resizing, then you can change the print DPI, but not the image nimber of pixels.

I am not sure in your program how you would do this.

Last edited by Lowell Goudge; 07-15-2009 at 07:54 PM.
07-15-2009, 09:00 PM   #25
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
photolady95's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Cruising PentaxForums and watching your back.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,569
Original Poster
Graphic, I don't have Photoshop on windows 7, I have photoshop elements.
In photoshop elements, it's listed as dpi, not ppi.

QuoteQuote:
Somewhere I think on your settings you are selecting the print DPI not the scan DPI.
No, I chose the dpi in my scanner settings. I'm using my scanner's standalone software. I am not using a twain driver within Photoshop Elements.
QuoteQuote:
Lowell..... at least in PSP you need to turn resampling OFF when resizing, then you can change the print DPI, but not the image nimber of pixels.
Yes, that's true in PhotoShop Elements as well.
07-16-2009, 06:19 AM   #26
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by photolady Quote
Graphic, I don't have Photoshop on windows 7, I have photoshop elements.
In photoshop elements, it's listed as dpi, not ppi.

No, I chose the dpi in my scanner settings. I'm using my scanner's standalone software. I am not using a twain driver within Photoshop Elements.
Yes, that's true in PhotoShop Elements as well.
WARNING WARNING WARNING

This is a bit of a sarcastic remark

You have been warned


Photolady, you are into computers, no?

Run a dual boot with XP or even 2000. Then run PS7 on that or whatever version of PS you have. Heck 5 will run on 2000 just fine.
07-16-2009, 07:18 AM   #27
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
photolady95's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Cruising PentaxForums and watching your back.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,569
Original Poster
Actually had you read my post in mac vs pc or what cpu for photography, you'd have seen my specs and it says.......I run dual boot of Vista and Windows 7 RC. And I've also said in this thread, I would have to boot to Vista to use Photoshop.

Btw, I posted another photo in the critique section of Post your Photos. This time when I scanned it, I used Grain Reduction filter and their doesn't seem to be as much noise on the scans now. Perhaps that fixed it.

Last edited by photolady95; 07-16-2009 at 08:07 AM.
07-16-2009, 08:32 AM   #28
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by photolady Quote
Actually had you read my post in mac vs pc or what cpu for photography, you'd have seen my specs and it says.......I run dual boot of Vista and Windows 7 RC. And I've also said in this thread, I would have to boot to Vista to use Photoshop.

Btw, I posted another photo in the critique section of Post your Photos. This time when I scanned it, I used Grain Reduction filter and their doesn't seem to be as much noise on the scans now. Perhaps that fixed it.
You want me to read too? Hmmphh! No more soup for you!

(OK, that was meant sarcastically. I was kidding around.)

Yeah I remember it now. So why don't you boot up and use PS? It is the best out there.
07-16-2009, 09:34 AM   #29
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
photolady95's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Cruising PentaxForums and watching your back.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,569
Original Poster
QuoteQuote:
You want me to read too? Hmmphh! No more soup for you!

(OK, that was meant sarcastically. I was kidding around.)
I told you, first week I had your number.

QuoteQuote:
Yeah I remember it now. So why don't you boot up and use PS? It is the best out there.
Because...I like Windows 7 RC better and it's too much trouble to keep rebooting to each OS. And because PSE has options that PS 7 doesn't.
07-16-2009, 10:25 AM   #30
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by photolady Quote
I told you, first week I had your number.

Because...I like Windows 7 RC better and it's too much trouble to keep rebooting to each OS. And because PSE has options that PS 7 doesn't.
fade in .....violin playing.

I used 7 for a long time and there are workarounds. I love CS4
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
lot, photography, photos, photoshop, pixels, size
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
posting photos gebj Site Suggestions and Help 5 08-18-2009 06:17 PM
First photos with my K-m. Critique wanted cinaibur Post Your Photos! 13 03-05-2009 03:12 PM
Ragatta Photos, Please Critique. mudman Post Your Photos! 3 10-30-2008 07:43 AM
My Recent Photos (Critique Appreciated) (9 Images) sjl7678 Post Your Photos! 8 10-26-2007 03:24 PM
Posting Photos Ed in GA Photographic Technique 9 06-11-2007 11:07 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:16 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top