Scanning for Gallery, Some APUGers know what to do

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Mar 15, 2013

Gallery and sharing my images and seeing some wonderful others is so much fun for me. I dont know how some APUGers put so much sharpness and elegant tones in to 500 KB image ? When I get big or small files from lab and downgraded to gallery size , that action kills the quality.

What is the secret ?

Umut

Rick A · Mar 15, 2013

I scan my silver gelatin prints and upload them.

BMbikerider · Mar 15, 2013

If I scan a print for the purposes of showing it on the web I scan at 72 dpi, save as a small J peg (File size) and upload that when I need to.

Scanning negs and transparencies, I scan at 72 dpi, but size the output image to at least 8x12, Save as a smal J Peg as before and upload that as and when required.

I have photoshop but tend not to do anything to the images before uploading, just resetting the size if need be.

Felinik · Mar 15, 2013

This article contains some interesting information about web and dpi...

http://www.scantips.com/no72dpi.html

vpwphoto · Mar 15, 2013

I digi-photograph the finished print. Although I don't know if you are talking about me.

spijker · Mar 15, 2013

I scan prints upto A4/Letter on my all-in-one printer/flatbedscanner. Scan at 300 dpi which gives you a file that's too big file pixelwise for apug but nice to work with. The original scan gets loaded onto the PC where I clone out some major dust spots (if needed) and adjust the levels a bit so that the full luminance scale is used. The white print border is always the brightest part of the photo. Crop out the white border. Then resize to 800 pixels on the long side using bicubic sharpener. Resizing makes all the tiny dust spots disappear. I convert the scan to greyscale (desaturate) first and re-tone in electronically to match the print. Save as jpg and you have a file to upload to APUG. For the editing, you can legally download Photoshop CS2 for free from the Adobe website but for simple stuff like this, anything goes. Once you got the hang of it, it doesn't take all that long per photo.

The 11x14 inch prints don't fit on my scanner. I tried to scan them with the fancy printer/copier/scanner at work but I got a lamp reflection on the scan with the glossy prints. Not so with the smaller glossy prints on the home printer/scanner. So I also photograph the larger prints with a DSLR on the tripod. The camera files are essentially treated the same way as the scan files.

Glossy prints (RC & FB) are a pain to re-photograph. I can often see the camera reflected in the print. I'm interested in hearing how other APUG members deal with glossy prints. The images currently in my gallery are all re-photographed 11x14 prints except for the table & chairs image. As an experiment, I scanned that in 2 half photo scans and glued them together in photoshop. Not very successful and it's still visible but only if you know about it.

Matthew Wagg · Mar 15, 2013

Not strictly allowed as its a digital process, but a sharpening tip for the web is to resize your image to web dimensions in photoshop, duplicate the layer and then run a high pass over it. Set the mode to overlay, flatten the image and save it.

removed account4 · Mar 15, 2013

hi umut

i just adjust the contrast / levels to match the print ..
when it is large ( usually 300dpi ) then "save for web"
( i use cs2 ) after i resize it at 72 ( they are usually saved
at less than 100 kb ) ... probably others have other tricks
i don't sharpen or unshapen or do any dance moves, its like a straight print ...

it sounds like your lab is good, but they are lite on the scans.
you might consider getting a used or refurbished skanner
and the free version of PS .. it might take a little getting used to
but in the end you will realize it is a piece of cake

john

edcculus · Mar 15, 2013

I prefer to scan prints I've already finished in the darkroom. Easier to get better quality with a low end scanner for the web. My usual settings are:

300 dpi
grayscale mode (people go back and forth on this, but its just for sharing on the web, so it probably doesn't matter in the end)
adjust levels so the most data is captured.
tell the scanner software to save in a lossless format like .tif

In Photoshop (I don't do anything in Photoshop that over enhances the scan. Just things to make the on screen image appear the most like the already produced print)
-adjust levels/curves so the image on screen matches the print as close as possible
-apply unsharp mask - do this very subtly. It really helps scanned images pop off the screen and resemble the physical print better.
-save
-save copy as imagename_lowres.jpg
-reduce file size for web upload

I really haven't gotten a good way of scanning negatives down. I do it on occasion, but since I don't have a finished print in hand, I end up over manipulating it in Photoshop. When I have a finished print, I already have gone through the vision steps of exposure, contrast, dodging/burning etc in the darkroom.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Mar 15, 2013

Thank you all,

If you know Ilya, his digital files are my favorite. I think Matthew Wagg's post is interesting and sounds something familiar to I read couple of years back and I have no good memory.

I think the trick is to scan image in two ways and than dublicate these to images in to one. Yes , that is used by todays high qualiy magazine photographers and bw images.

Let me ask few questions to Matthew : Here is his post ;

Not strictly allowed as its a digital process, but a sharpening tip for the web is to resize your image to web dimensions in photoshop, duplicate the layer and then run a high pass over it. Set the mode to overlay, flatten the image and save it.

I dont know the terminology:

A- How can I high pass the image ?
B- What is setting to overlay ?
C- What is flatting the image ?
D- And is there a free online photo editor site to work with layers , high pass filtering and others ?
E - What is the size of a 72 dpi scan of a 35mm film ? What needed to say to lab ?
F- Is that 72 dpi is the resolution of LCD screens and makes everything looks sharper ?

Now , I will jump to Felinik's link.

Umut

Richard S. (rich815) · Mar 15, 2013

Shouldn't this be discussed at DPUG? ;-)

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Mar 15, 2013

Felinik points to a site and site points to herebelow summary. 72 dpi is important for text not image.

The 72 or 96 dpi numbers are NEVER used to show images on the monitor screen. There is no concept of inches or dpi in the video system. Those logical inch dpi numbers are only used as a crude approximation to size text fonts on the screen. The size results are not very accurate, but we have nothing better for text fonts. These numbers have absolutely NOTHING to do with showing images on any screen, no way, no how, not then, not now, no matter how many times you hear others that don't understand it tell you otherwise (they are also victims, and are just parroting what they heard too). Images already have a size in pixels (the 412x324 pixel images above), and the video system simply shows those pixels directly, one for one. Video only shows pixels. This is the easiest possible result. Don't make it be hard, the correct way is much easier. If you show a 412x324 pixel image on the screen, you will see 412x324 pixels. That's all there is to it, how things actually work, the only theory that will allow us to predict accurately what will actually happen. You can clearly see this is true if you will just look at what actually happens on the screen. Dpi is not a factor on the screen, and this is one of the most basic and necessary fundamentals of digital images.

Reality goes much better if we forget about 72 dpi, and instead simply create the number of pixels that we want to see on the screen.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Mar 15, 2013

Shouldn't this be discussed at DPUG? ;-)

No, Herr Politzei !

vpwphoto · Mar 15, 2013

rich815 said:
Shouldn't this be discussed at DPUG? ;-)

This is a legitimate concern for posting images in the APUG gallery. Short of mailing prints around the globe, I am fine with this conversation.
I brought up that I feel more people should put a few images up to show what makes them tick.

Also any "analog only" image maker would be very hard pressed to find a competition/exhibition that accepts slides or prints rather than a disk or .jpegs and or an on-line entry where you attache files.

This is part of the life of anyone interested in working beyond the reach of the post-office... and that is dying and costly anyway.

vpwphoto · Mar 15, 2013

Mustafa Umut Sarac said:
No, Herr Politzei !

+1

edcculus · Mar 15, 2013

Don't sweat the 72 dpi thing. I usually reduce to around 100dpi for emailing and web upload. Some sites force you to reduce the file size to a certain size to minimize bandwith. That may necessitate that you reduce the file to 72 dpi, or reduce the dimensions of the image.

DPI and dimensions work conversly. If you scan an image at 8X10 and 300dpi, then you enlarge it to 16X20, you are effectively cutting the resolution in half. If you reduce the same file to 4x5, you will double the pixel count. There are settings in Photoshop that you need to be familiar with. One is the "resample image" box in Image Size dialogue. With the box un clicked, it will recalculate resolution as I described above. If you click the box, Photoshop will decide what to do with the pixels. If you reduce the image to 4x5, it will keep your image at 300dpi and essentially "throw away" the extra pixels. On the other hand, if you increase the size, it will continue to say 300 dpi, however, you will NOT have actually gained any resolution! It will interpolate and guess what it thinks it should put there, but effective resolution has NOT increased!

You also asked about high pass. Specifically in Photoshop, the High Pass filter is something you would apply to a duplicated layer, then blend it into the original image. An easier way to acheive that is the Unsharp Mask filter I described. It is essentially a high pass filter, that you can control the paramaters, and it automatically blends itself. Be very subtle with this. Its not intended to drastically change the image. Just enough to sharpen the edges a little.

Hope this helps.

Richard S. (rich815) · Mar 15, 2013

So no one here knows what a winking symbol means? ;-)

StoneNYC · Mar 15, 2013

You can't talk about this here go to DPUG (this is a semi-joke, because if I were asking that's why I would be told hehe).

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

MattKing · Mar 15, 2013

This topic is specifically approved for APUG - it is the only "how-to" scanning topic that is.

For those who have larger prints that won't scan in one pass on their scanners, there actually is a useful free, Microsoft product that does a good job at stitching images.

It is called Microsoft Research Image Composite Editor (or Microsoft ICE) and can be found here: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/ivm/ice/

Did you ever expect to see the words "useful free, Microsoft product" together?

And with respect to Umut's initial question, I would suggest you look carefully at the installation guide for gallery uploads - particularly the size limits.

I'm slowly discovering some of the complexities of re-sizing for the web. Certainly it seems to help a bit to re-size in stages, with close examination and some sharpening between each step.

StoneNYC · Mar 15, 2013

MattKing said:
This topic is specifically approved for APUG - it is the only "how-to" scanning topic that is.

For those who have larger prints that won't scan in one pass on their scanners, there actually is a useful free, Microsoft product that does a good job at stitching images.

It is called Microsoft Research Image Composite Editor (or Microsoft ICE) and can be found here: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/ivm/ice/

Did you ever expect to see the words "useful free, Microsoft product" together?

And with respect to Umut's initial question, I would suggest you look carefully at the installation guide for gallery uploads - particularly the size limits.

I'm slowly discovering some of the complexities of re-sizing for the web. Certainly it seems to help a bit to re-size in stages, with close examination and some sharpening between each step.

Oh ok.

I've found that with certain programs like Lightroom, there is an option to export as a certain size, you can select "long edge" and "850 pixels" and this being the max size APUG will allow of 850 pixels usually makes a nice crisp image, I don't change the exported amount of detail, I keep the export at 300dpi but don't put size limitations on the file install (like requiring the file to be no more than 100k) but let it do it's thing... If I limit the size, my images aren't as crisp.

Hope that helps.

EDIT: Also, if I DON'T define the "long edge" pixel count, and the size is larger than 850 pixels, then when APUG re-sizes the image, often the colors and tones are off, I know Sean has said their server SHOULDN'T affect the image colors, but in my experience it does, so make sure you creat a size under the 850 limit or you may run into issues with the "look" of your image not matching the original on the computer.

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

winger · Mar 16, 2013

From what I've heard, some browsers re-interpret the image data as well and show their version of it.

When I size images for the web, I totally ignore what the dpi value is and just look at the pixel dimensions. If I make the height 700 px then the image will show on most screens without scrolling and the file size fits within the limits of nearly all sites I use. After I've resized (and saved as a new name), I apply just enough unsharp mask for it to look like the print (scanning usually softens it a little, possibly because FB just doesn't get flat enough on the glass). For here, I almost always scan the print. Since the scanner applies its own ideas of how it should look, I do usually have to use a little PS to get the scan to match the print (allowed by gallery rules).

vpwphoto · Mar 16, 2013

StoneNYC said:
Oh ok.

EDIT: Also, if I DON'T define the "long edge" pixel count, and the size is larger than 850 pixels, then when APUG re-sizes the image, often the colors and tones are off, I know Sean has said their server SHOULDN'T affect the image colors, but in my experience it does, so make sure you creat a size under the 850 limit or you may run into issues with the "look" of your image not matching the original on the computer.

If the re-sampling process squishes the pixel count it has to leave some out and re-name others in the line, so yes colors can be changed.. especially transition areas.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Mar 17, 2013

Let me put an perspective in to two layer , one layer over sharpened , hybrid files.

I visited Victoria and Albert Museum site and I found there an article on restoration of Queen Elisabeth 1's virginal , spinet. Its a 4 octaves harpsichord , an musical instrument which was the predecessor of piano but small and mobile and lightweight. It has a sound of when you are playing a metal string guitar with heavy thick gypsy jazz pick with strong impacts. Piano is a hammering instrument to strings with spring attached hammers , harpsichord is a mechanism which cut the way of string with snaps.

Well , they try to restorate the decoration of it and found that there was two layers. First under paint layer is a gold folio layer strongly attached to the wooden panel and there is an top paint layer on gold.

All the falcons , lions and what ever chavellier stuff is applied on the top paint layer with scraching with needle. When the top layer removed with scratching , the bottom gold layer is effected also and deformed.

This is the trick , when the gold been scratched , it shines wonderfully with like lots of gold mirrors.

I find the similar thing at two layer , one layer oversharpened with edges, hybrid files , that quality.

Thank you for pms and have a wonderful sunday.

Umut

Scanning for Gallery, Some APUGers know what to do

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency