Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Thank you for advice to crop the 1st picture.
Second picture I took simply from window in my hotel, due to distance the view is not perfect, that's why I resorted to zooming and losing quality. I have idea how to use this photo though - I want to crop shining lumps of mountains in equal quadrants, then assemble them in panorama image like pieces of mosaic. I think it maybe used for decoration of Sikkim chapter.
About third people say - it's ugly scene and great pic but definitely not for guidebook.
by FarEasterner on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 07:19:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
forget to ask (about second picture) - do you know how big (in pixels) picture for decoration should be if in book the panoramic photo should be around 3*7 or 2*6 centimetres?
by FarEasterner on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 07:31:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not sure to be honest. I would say as big as possible for quality but that isn't always possible. They can reduce the size for their own purposes.  The guidebook people ought to have some idea of what is needed.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 07:41:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am not an expert, but apparently you need ~300 pixels per inch to print at an "acceptable photo quality" of ~150 dots per inch. That's 120 pixels per centimetre, so 360x840 pixels for 3x7 or 240x720 pixels for 2x6.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 07:42:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I wanted something like this:

but unfortunately as original photo was just 1024 pixels in width such collage may be printed only as 2x6 or even smaller.
by FarEasterner on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 08:51:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nice idea. Shame about the resolution though.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 08:53:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One can increase the number of pixels quite a bit without negatively affecting details; however, increasing the size of the photo will not help a photo that lacks sufficient detail to begin with.  In such cases the lack of detail may become more obvious.  I have software to increase pixel size up to 600 per cent.  If you like, send the digital file to me and I'll give it a try. No guarantees that it will produce wonders, but it could work (stargazingcamel@aol.com).

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 03:46:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you for offer of help - if I need enlarging the picture I will know where to write ;)

By the way maybe you know how I can reduce grains from scans (for example in Photoshop) that they will look like camera-made picture? I have some scans (actually advertising materials) which I have to include in my book but after scanning them I realized that the texture of scans is different from photos. Or it's better not to scan them but photograph? I tried one time to photograph but it was worse than scanning.

by FarEasterner on Sun Feb 24th, 2008 at 08:24:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You should be able to choose the resolution that you scan in at.  Higher resolution should give you a similar result to the original picture.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Sun Feb 24th, 2008 at 09:44:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I tried but when I increased resolution too much (for example starting with 1200 dots per inch or so) picture quality does not improve much but used disk space - yes.
by FarEasterner on Mon Feb 25th, 2008 at 04:25:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Scanners will sometimes pretend to support higher resolution than they do ...
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Feb 25th, 2008 at 04:29:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
More than you wanted to know I'm sure, but...

Yes, I've noticed a lot of grain in some of my scans also, especially from negatives that produce higher grain to begin with.  For example, the higher the ISO number, generally the more apparent grain you will see. Good film at 100 ISO or below produces little apparent grain at moderate sized enlargement while ISO 800 will show more.  I believe that grain is also more apparent in negatives than positive (chrome/slide) films.  The other thing I have heard is that scanning resolutions at 5000ppi and above somehow avoid magnifying the grain that you and I see from our scans.  Unfortunately, my film scanner maxes out at 4000ppi.

Another solution is to use a scanning software that has built in grain reduction. A German company (Lasersoft) produces a scanning software called Silverfast Ai that has a built in grain reduction program that works very well.  I use it on my flatbed scanner for print scanning and medium format transparency scans.  Unfortunately, Silverfast is not inexpensive unless you get it bundled with the purchase of a scanner as I did.  I've been toying with the idea of obtaining it for my film scanner, but it runs over $300, and it's good for just the one scanner.  Each scanner has its own version.

You might try scanning at a lower resolution and see what effect that has on reducing grain. In Photoshop try using the Filter>Noise>dust&scratches or the median filter.  Also be sure to buy low grain films to begin with.  Check manufacturer's or photo web site for stats on products.

I used these two filters on the photo below.  First pic is the untouched version.  The second is dust and scratches, and third is median. Both filters seem to blur details somewhat depending on how you set them, so be careful and be prepared to use a sharpening method to bring back detail.  By the way, this photo wasn't all that sharp to begin with and before cropping, this it included the whole animal and quite a bit of background.. Sharpening is also necessary for scanned photos/transparencies that will be used for books/magazines, etc, in order to get the best product, but that's a whole complicated subject by itself.




I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sun Feb 24th, 2008 at 03:17:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you so much. I never knew about software.

Of course I tried using Dust & scratches in Photoshop but it was not perfect. Then I used Adobe Image Ready (I don't remember precisely what i did but I think when I opened a photo or scan it used to say it can optimize it and in some scans result was little bit better).

Then i found how to improve - just next to Dust & Scratches button there is one - Reduce noise with three parameters. After many attempts I found when I put upper one at 0, and the rest at 25%, result is quite satisfactory. You can try also.

by FarEasterner on Mon Feb 25th, 2008 at 04:32:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I originally tried using the reduce noise filter on the photo above and it didn't reduce the grain at all so I didn't include the results in my posting. It appeared to me that the reduce noise filter affects mostly other types of noise such as scanner induced, camera, and Jpeg compression noise. These types of noise problems seem to be affected differently than film grain by the filter, but if your results work for you then there is no problem.  One would think that noise is noise, but the size, color and frequency of the noise may be looked at in different ways by the software. Anyway, best of luck with your photos and book.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Mon Feb 25th, 2008 at 10:59:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Project Free-Dumb

by rifek - May 4
3 comments

Growing Food in Hard Times

by gmoke - Apr 20
1 comment

US Rugby

by rifek - Apr 18

There Are No Grown-Ups In Charge

by rifek - Apr 17
2 comments

Occasional Series