Are some of you posting pics by using scanned photos from a regular camera or ar you all loading digital images? I may get a scanner soon and wondered if scanned pics from a 35 mm do the job (?)
Thanks!
Ralph
Thanks!
Ralph
Quick question about pics
- Thread starter Ralph
- Start date
Hi Ralph, I use a digital camera but I sure that the scanner will work too...just use a high resolution setting so that the pic doesn't look grainy Here's a pic of a railroad ticket that was scanned from 35mm with a really cheap scanner. I'm sure that Shamus will fill us both in on this further
Attachments
Thanks guys! I'm catching up with technology one step at a time.
Looks like I'll be able to post pics after I get a scanner. I appreciate your examples.
Ralph
Looks like I'll be able to post pics after I get a scanner. I appreciate your examples.
Ralph
Ralph I have a cheap scanner and that is how I used to post. I was not at all happy with the results, it's pretty discourging to have a top-notch photo reduced to 70% of it's clarity. However if you get a good scanner you should be allright. Thing to keep in mind however is a decent digital will pay for itself fairly quick because of the savings in film and processing costs, also if your pic doesn't come out quite right you can adjust it yourself on your puter, plus play games like some of us have been doing lately instead of working on our layout like we should be doing!
What about using a (non)digital camera, and getting the pix put on a CD-ROM when you get the film developed? Anyone go that route?
billk as far as I know they will have to scan em' in to the puter, so as long as they have a good scanner..............................
Camera vs Scanner
Tyson 's got an excellent point. A digital camera will pay for its self right quick in photo processing costs. I've got a 35mm SLR too but since I got the digital I haven't touched it.
Tyson 's got an excellent point.
A digital camera will pay for its self right quick in photo processing costs. I've got a 35mm SLR too but since I got the digital I haven't touched it.Always scan the photo you require at no less than 300 DPI, this will result in the image being quite large on the screen, but it can be resized/sharpened/brightness & contrast altered without any ill effects.
JPEG or .JPG file formats are highly compressed and unlike other image compression formats does not store RGB values for each individual pixels. Instead, the JPEG format works on luminance averages for 2 pixels at a time. So what does this really mean ?. Each time you load a JPEG image and then save it again as a JPEG image, the same technique is applied and image quality it lost. While this loss is not noticeable the first time if you take an image and save it over 3 times as a JPEG, then view the original, you’ll see a loss in image quality.
When scanning an image in from your scanner, if you plan to alter the image in anyway, its best to save in another format initially, for example, BMP, TIFF, PNG etc. Once you have finished altering your image, then save as a JPEG to keep the image loss to a minimum.
Many people argue that the image loss is impossible to see, but the fact that image loss happens is good enough reason to keep it down to a minimum. For a better idea, and to see this loss, load an image in, then save as a JPEG, reload this saved JPEG, then resave it as a JPEG again. Repeat this about 10 times, then view the original image compared to the JPEG.
Saving a JPEG image as a JPEG again once or twice will result in little noticeable loss, so if you plan on altering your images over multiple sessions, saving the image as JPEG, then altering it again at another time, it is best to have your images in another format other than JPEG and when you are happy you wont be altering the image again, then save it for final storage as a JPEG.
Shamus
JPEG or .JPG file formats are highly compressed and unlike other image compression formats does not store RGB values for each individual pixels. Instead, the JPEG format works on luminance averages for 2 pixels at a time. So what does this really mean ?. Each time you load a JPEG image and then save it again as a JPEG image, the same technique is applied and image quality it lost. While this loss is not noticeable the first time if you take an image and save it over 3 times as a JPEG, then view the original, you’ll see a loss in image quality.
When scanning an image in from your scanner, if you plan to alter the image in anyway, its best to save in another format initially, for example, BMP, TIFF, PNG etc. Once you have finished altering your image, then save as a JPEG to keep the image loss to a minimum.
Many people argue that the image loss is impossible to see, but the fact that image loss happens is good enough reason to keep it down to a minimum. For a better idea, and to see this loss, load an image in, then save as a JPEG, reload this saved JPEG, then resave it as a JPEG again. Repeat this about 10 times, then view the original image compared to the JPEG.
Saving a JPEG image as a JPEG again once or twice will result in little noticeable loss, so if you plan on altering your images over multiple sessions, saving the image as JPEG, then altering it again at another time, it is best to have your images in another format other than JPEG and when you are happy you wont be altering the image again, then save it for final storage as a JPEG.
Shamus
Ralph,
All the pics I post are scanned photos (or real, protoype stuff) and digital (of Garahbara, my layout).
Scanned, I use 75dpi scan and 75dpi output (web quality setting). Scanners are pretty cheap. If printing the pic, I use 600 dpi in, 600 dpi out (print quality). Mine (CanoScan N640P) cost $110 AUS. ($55 US). No probs with it. It can be a bit slow when you up the scan resolution. (300dpi, about 2 mins per pic).
All the pics I post are scanned photos (or real, protoype stuff) and digital (of Garahbara, my layout).
Scanned, I use 75dpi scan and 75dpi output (web quality setting). Scanners are pretty cheap. If printing the pic, I use 600 dpi in, 600 dpi out (print quality). Mine (CanoScan N640P) cost $110 AUS. ($55 US). No probs with it. It can be a bit slow when you up the scan resolution. (300dpi, about 2 mins per pic).
Originally posted by Tyson Rayles
Ralph I have a cheap scanner and that is how I used to post. I was not at all happy with the results, it's pretty discourging to have a top-notch photo reduced to 70% of it's clarity. However if you get a good scanner you should be allright. Thing to keep in mind however is a decent digital will pay for itself fairly quick because of the savings in film and processing costs, also if your pic doesn't come out quite right you can adjust it yourself on your puter, plus play games like some of us have been doing lately instead of working on our layout like we should be doing!
I was out of town over the weekend, so I'm just getting caught up on some of the discussions. Anyhoo....
There are two other points I'd like to add to Tyson's reply here. One is the convenience factor. In the past, after I'd shot a roll of film, I'd drive to the nearest 1-hour photo place, drop the film off, go back home or run other errands, then go back and pick the film up. Not terribly convenient! Getting my digital camera completely changed that factor for me.
The second is an outgrowth of the first: time. In the past, if I wasn't happy with the prints I got back, I'd just lost not only the time it took me to shoot them but also the hour or more waiting for them to be processed. Again, my digital changed all that.
I love my 35mm's and all of their nifty accessories, but I'm not sure I'll ever go back to film-based photography - at least not on any substantial basis.
I agree with Casey(and everyone else).Digital camera is the way to go. You can pick up a cheap one( I paid about $230 at Staples) that will take halfway decent pictures. They're also good for those non-railroad pictures like family events. How many times have we all heard someone say"Ohh I can't wait to get these back from the deveolper." I tell them, by the time you get those back...I'll have mine downloaded and even posted on the web.
Digital is the best.....
Digital is the best.....
Simply put, the purchase of a digital camera left me wondering..."WHY didn't I get one SOONER??"
Billk,
I have recently gone digital, but I probably will not give up film entirely.
What I have done for the last three years is send my film to Kodak's Qualex lab. I order the normal double prints and a CD at the same time. They do the scans to the CD in Hi-Res, so I have good quality with which to work. I had previously tried a local Ritz 1-hour service. Although the prints were done well, I was very unhappy with their work in making the CD.
I have recently gone digital, but I probably will not give up film entirely.
What I have done for the last three years is send my film to Kodak's Qualex lab. I order the normal double prints and a CD at the same time. They do the scans to the CD in Hi-Res, so I have good quality with which to work. I had previously tried a local Ritz 1-hour service. Although the prints were done well, I was very unhappy with their work in making the CD.