Old 03-23-2007, 06:20 PM   #1
Northern Limits
Senior Member
 
Northern Limits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 611
Unhappy That's it, I'm going digital!

Another rejection related to image quality (I don't think the blowing snow helps). But I always seem to loose image quality transfering film to a digital media. That includes the developer's CD version.
Even though I have a Canon Elan w/ 24-85mm lens, the $400 Sony digital takes more readily accepted pictures. And a large enough format to crop.
So thats it, for RP I'm going digital!

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=352439
__________________
Cheers, Jim.


Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Northern Limits is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 06:37 PM   #2
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Yes, getting a good scan is a problem. I had a favorite slide, one from the last batch I shot as I used up my stash of film. In those days I was having everything scanned to CD also. I tried to submit it and it came back for some dimension of bad quality - there was nothing I could do. Frustrating. That is a shot I hope to retake someday on digital. Part of the problem was that the scan was 1536x1024. If I had received a more detailed scan, I might have been able to save the image with good digital processing.

I still have hopes of doing some scanning on old slides and uploading a few of the best. I think that RP is more tolerant of marginal quality on old slides as opposed to slides just made.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 06:49 PM   #3
a231pacific
Senior Member
 
a231pacific's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 822
Default

The photo CD's you get back with your processed film are generally just for snap-shot sized reprints. If you want a good scan from film, you need at least 2800 dpi and preferably 4000 dpi. Fortunately, the current generation of film scanners are not too expensive, if you have a lot of slides to scan. You might check out ebay for a used one. But if you are mostly doing RP type work, going digital makes a lot more sense.

Michael Allen
a231pacific is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 06:52 PM   #4
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Good point, Michael. I just want to add that if one has a need to scan a small set of slides, one might be able to rent a scanner. The pro photo store here in DC, Penn Camera, allows you to rent a good quality scanner by the day or by the weekend for a reasonable rate.

Something I've always meant to do, but two kids and I am barely able to keep up with sorting, culling, and processing my new stuff, much less dig back into the older stuff.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 07:28 PM   #5
Northern Limits
Senior Member
 
Northern Limits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a231pacific
If you want a good scan from film, you need at least 2800 dpi and preferably 4000 dpi.

Michael Allen
Wow, that high a DPI count. I've been scanning at up to 400 dpi. I should try a scan at my max of 1600 dpi.
No rentals around here.
__________________
Cheers, Jim.


Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Northern Limits is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 07:35 PM   #6
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
So thats it, for RP I'm going digital!
And somewhere in California Pat Lorenz sobs...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 07:43 PM   #7
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Limits
Wow, that high a DPI count. I've been scanning at up to 400 dpi. I should try a scan at my max of 1600 dpi.
No rentals around here.
I always get confused by the units of measure. Here is a series of articles about them:
http://desktoppub.about.com/cs/inter...resolution.htm

Jim, when you scan, what are the pixel dimensions of the file you create? And how would they differ, if at all, if you scanned at 1600 dpi?
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 09:20 PM   #8
rino54
Member
 
rino54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 86
Default

Hi !

Umm going digital is a quick decision. Did you try to sharpenm more your picture ? It's really useful when you scan slides. Here is a fast example with your picture (screen copy). I put the values i used for this sharpening (Photoshop CS2 Smart Sharpening)

Renaud
__________________
Discover my website The Passing Trains, about Railroad Photography: http://kimandrenaud.com/renaud/en/
rino54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 09:35 PM   #9
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,905
Default

That picture seems to have gone from being soft (bad) to being way over processed (very bad).


Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 09:58 PM   #10
Northern Limits
Senior Member
 
Northern Limits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 611
Default

Janusz,

Great information link. I've bookmarked it for further reference.

Pixel dimensions: 174.3m at 1600 pixels, image size is 9650 x 6314 pix, and the document size remains 6 x 4 ins.

What I really noticed by scanning at the higher dpi was the photographic detail was a lot more visible than in the 300 dpi scan. (i.e. I could now clearly read the locomotive number). This should help with editing.

I guess it is time to go read the manuals and see how this translates into ppi.

This probably means more to you than me - I'm finding that the more I learn, the less I know
__________________
Cheers, Jim.


Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Northern Limits is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 10:03 PM   #11
Northern Limits
Senior Member
 
Northern Limits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rino54
Hi !

Umm going digital is a quick decision. Did you try to sharpenm more your picture ? It's really useful when you scan slides. Here is a fast example with your picture (screen copy). I put the values i used for this sharpening (Photoshop CS2 Smart Sharpening)

Renaud
I did sharpen the pic, but obviously not enough. I noticed the lamp posts were developing halos - so I quit there.
__________________
Cheers, Jim.


Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Northern Limits is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 10:42 PM   #12
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Limits
Pixel dimensions: 174.3m at 1600 pixels, image size is 9650 x 6314 pix, and the document size remains 6 x 4 ins.

If this means 174,300 bytes for a 60 megapixel original, that is an awful lot of compression to start out with. If you can get a 4325x3157 pixel file of that size at the 400 setting, I might prefer that, might not. It's really an issue of resolution (details in lots of pixels) vs the amount of color variation (which affects file size but not pixels). I'm curious to see your result starting with the new file.

Or is it a 174 megabyte file? In that case, it's a monster file, and you should hopefully get a great result with it. That would be like a TIFF, which is not compressed (even RAW files are compressed, albeit without loss of information).
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 10:55 PM   #13
Northern Limits
Senior Member
 
Northern Limits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 611
Default

Oops, yep, that should be 174.32mb. It is big, the screen view shows at 10%.

I don't think the original is RP quality, but it will be worth messing with to see the results.
The original is in this forum http://www.railpictures.net/forums/s...1&page=2&pp=25
__________________
Cheers, Jim.


Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Northern Limits is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 11:59 PM   #14
ken45
LA&SL Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 700
Default

Yup, there's a reason that my ELANIIE sits in the camera bag while my little P&S Powershot A520 takes all the shots now. Just couldn't get good quality scanning to digital media, not to mention the only film I can get in this town is 200 speed.
ken45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2007, 01:34 AM   #15
a231pacific
Senior Member
 
a231pacific's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 822
Default

My D200 images are 3904 X 2616 pixels and the RAW file is about 16 Megabytes in size. Converted to a Tiff it about doubles in size. For RP, I reduce the file to 1024 X 683 and save as a jpeg at around 0.9 1.0 Megabytes.

Slides scanned on my Minolta Dimage slide scanner, set at 2700 dpi, produce Tiff files that are 3960 X 2664 pixels and the file size is around 30 Megabytes. For RP, I downsize to the same 1024 X 683 and 0.9 1.0 Megabyte jpeg file size.

The same scanner, set at 5400 dpi produces Tiff files that are 7920 X 5328 pixels and 120 Megabytes in size. I only scan at this level if I plan to print images that are larger than 8 X 10.

If you are getting the same files sizes, scanning at 1600 dpi, Im guessing that you are using a flatbed scanner and that it is interpolating the files up to the larger size. This will give an apparent increase in quality, although it cant actually produce detail that isnt there in the scan.

It may not seem to make sense, but an image scanned or taken at a higher resolution and then reduced in size will always be sharper than an image shot or scanned at the lower resolution to begin with. One reason is, all your processing is done on the higher resolution image and the final result then reduced to RP dimensions. You can test this for yourself by running your higher resolution scan through PhotoShop, then reducing it to RP size. Then try the same processing on a file already reduced to RP dimensions and compare the result. It will be noticeable.

Dpi and ppi are two different things and you cant directly compare them, but as a rule of thumb, 300 ppi is considered to produce a photographic quality print. If your scanned image is 7920 X 5328, you should be able to make an 18 X 26 print at 300 at ppi. My D200 will allow me to print a 9 X 13 image at 300 ppi, so an 8 X 10 print will even allow me to crop a bit. This is why many people maintain that a 10 megapixel camera is all you need. Only pros who plan to exhibit large prints need to worry about more pixels.

Michael Allen
a231pacific is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2007, 01:35 AM   #16
Pat Lorenz
Senior Member
 
Pat Lorenz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 326
Default

well ween, it really doesnt matter anymore. Im over myself this month!
Pat Lorenz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2007, 04:18 AM   #17
Northern Limits
Senior Member
 
Northern Limits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 611
Default It works!

Micheal,

I am working with a flatbed scanner. Your suggestions have brought success. Note this one is even in colour.
Maybe there is still hope for my Elan

Image © Jim Dorst
PhotoID: 180740
Photograph © Jim Dorst
__________________
Cheers, Jim.


Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Northern Limits is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2007, 06:45 AM   #18
a231pacific
Senior Member
 
a231pacific's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 822
Default

Jim,

Glad you made it in. Also, even though the idea of including the bunkhouse was neat, it's a better shot without it. Good work.

Michael Allen
a231pacific is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2007, 08:18 AM   #19
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,905
Default

I lovedc my Elan 7. Gave me many ood years. And I gave it away to someone who would actually use t when I went digital.


Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.