Picture quality - need tips to improve

[Loual]

I'm unhappy with the quality of the pictures I post. They're all taken with a 35mm camera and then scanned into my computer and saved as JPEG files using Microsoft Picture It! 99. Do I need a digital camera to post really impressive resolution pictures? Or do I just need to fine tune what I am doing? The P-car deserves better. Tips?

[tight as a bull's ass]

Scanning almost always decreases the quality of the original image.

You can get a very decent digital camera for 3-400 bucks. Anything over 2.5 Megapixels is quite good.

[wckrause]

No you don't need a digital camera. What resolution are you scanning at (how many pixels per inch)? What is the file size of the image you end up with? Post an example here so we can take a look.

[beepbeep]

No you don't need digital camera....actually best results are made by using "chemical" camera and then scanning in then pictures for post-processing on a computer.

First:

1. Take nice shots with SLR-camera...preferably with reversal film.

2. Scan it in with film-scanner if possible, (flatbed scanners are almost unusable if you are scanning directly from a film). Use at least 2000 dpi when scanning a film, or 300dpi when scanning from a photo.

4. Fix all huesm levels and other post-production stuff.

5. Downscale the picture to desired resolution. 640 x 480 (or in the ballpark) is good for internet. Then sharpen it a bit.

6. Save image as a JPG. Use 90% "quality" setting for good (enough) results.

[Bill Verburg]

You can do as others have suggested, but it sure seems like a lot of trouble . I use a ~2mp Nikon at medium res. Takes 2 sec to load images onto the C drive and 4 clicks to reduce to whatever the required size for posting is, with JASC Paint Shop Pro(which also does the animations).

[Loual]

Thanks all, for your suggestions so far. Here is a sample taken with a Canon 3000i (about 12 years old) with an 80-200 zoom lense and 200 speed print film. I scanned it at 600 dpi, which seemed to improve the quality compared with the 150 dpi my software was defaulting to. Saved it as JPG at "best" quality setting.

[wckrause]

Looks fine. 150 dpi should have been enough resolution for internet quality pictures. The level of jpg compression will have more to do with the end result. It will always be a trade off between file size and compression quality.

There's no reason to scan at 2000 dpi if your end result is only going to be 400x300 pixels, all it will add is increased scanning time, file size, and processing time.

What does one of you poor quality pictures look like?

[campbellcj]

Lou...I sure don't see anything wrong with that pic! Looks fine, and it's only 39KB too.

FWIW I often scan magazine articles and film prints at 150dpi and they look OK enough for web use. I suppose the post-processing (color palette optimization, JPEG compression etc) makes a big difference, as does the scanner itself.

Anyways, looks like you're on the right track.

BTW one thing not often mentioned is that the major film developers such as Kodak will image your film shots onto a CD for you, for a nominal charge. It's another option vs. a digicam or scanning.

[89911]

I scanned all my photos before I bought a digital camera. Yes it works and is relatively easy. What isn't easy is driving to the place, droping off your photos, waiting however long, picking them up, and then scaning to do all this. Ask for a digital camera for Christmas, it is a great tool, especially for documenting work when before you wouldn't want to waste 10 shots of electrical wiring. You'll take more photos more often.

[ebradway]

There are lots of options for scanning regular pictures - and lots of ways to improve it. But unless you are shooting for 'portfolio' prints, you might find a digital camera to be more useful. Mine's been in the shop because I mistreated it (Canon said it wasn't covered under warranty because the found sand in the battery compartment and a 'yellow sticky substance' in the case - that would be beer). I sure wish I had it for the clutch job I just did. I took a 24-shot roll just after dropping the engine (see http://www.bradway.net/pictures/porsche/clutch) and took the film to CVS and bought their "picture disk" - a floppy with all the images scanned for me. We did refer to the pictures a couple times to see how things 'were'. If I had my digital camera, which holds 280 640x480 pictures, we could have taken a picture of every step along the way and it wouldn't have cost a dime.

[speeder]

I have been meaning to ask someone; how is the quality of 35mm to CD for internet? Photo processors offer this now and I wonder- is it better than digital? Chris C., what are your photos on "girls" thread? They are awesome. Thanks.

[911pcars]

Lou,
I borrowed your pic and looked at it's properties. Your software did output the image at its default setting of 150 dpi (not 600 as you wanted). It's 480 pixels wide and the file size is 41kb. This is the first image shown here.


I took your image which was a little soft and reset the resolution to 72 dpi.This is the maximum resolution a computer monitor can display (no advantage going higher). I kept the same image size, dodged the back end slightly, lightened the wheels, burned in the background, then added a sharpening filter to make it appear more in focus. This is the second image (43kb). Can you see any difference?


Both images were set at the medium jpg setting.

For the best resolution from a film camera, I recommend burning the images directly from film onto a Kodak CD. Other methods, while perfectly functional for most uses (I usually scan photos), goes through another generation which picks up some contrast and dust spots and loses some detail (depends on final output size). While I'm basically a film guy, I've been looking for that perfect, low cost (under $1000) digital camera (not asking too much am I?). While there are excellent ones out on the market, not one has all the bases covered. I'm anticipating a test report on the Nikon 5000, but others, including the Canon C2 and Sony DSC707 are worthy competitors, if not lacking in one or two tiny areas. Alas, like electronics, digital cameras are always going to be a moving target; outdated although perfectly functional the day you buy one.

Sherwood Lee
http://members.rennlist.org/911pcars

[masraum]

Another thing if your file size is too small you are losing quality unless it is a really small photo. It may be more irritating for the non-broadband types, but an image of size 100-250K would be pretty good quality. 39K produced a good picture, but the smaller the file size the lower the quality of the picture all other things being equal. Another thing, try adjusting the scan color/contrast/brightness etc.... Scans often lose something in the process.
No expert just what I've found with my stuff.

[Jack Olsen]

Good advice you're getting, here.

If you can get ahold of a program like Photoshop, you can do a lot to improve the quality of scans or digital pictures. Sherwood got it started, but there are filters in that program that can do wonders.

In this image, I did a levels adjustment on the right side. Even using the programs auto-adjust settings, it's like a hazy film has been cleaned off the image:



In the next image, I got downright dishonest, and blurred the areas of the picture other than the car, giving it the rough appearance of having used a telephoto lens with a very narroe range of focus. It makes the car pop out of the picture all the more.



Also note that Pelican has increased the maximum size of images, so that a 100K image can be posted. Here's an example of how good that can be:

[Kahuna]

I am a proponent of Nikon or Canon digital cams 2mp ~$4-500 for very good small ones which handily fit in your pocket and thus will be available when desired. Under $3k for the 3-4mp overkill models.

Used with photo editing software like Paint Shop, Picture It, Photoshop, etc. I never could get Irfan work right, probably just my computer or a Win NT problem there.

For anything on the web a 2mp camera shot at medium res will give a 400mp image+ or- which needs to be reduced to 100-65mp for uploading to sites like this, Rennlist is a bit more generous allowing 125mp

Jack, Am I missing something? My reply screen shows a max upload size of 65k.

[patalive]

We had a discussion on digital cameras a short while ago. I posted four web sites that were featured in a WSJ article that provide outstanding reviews of digital cameras, from $100 to over $5,000. I believe one or two of the sites even provide a shoppers guide to help you through the maze of features. See the thread at:http://www.pelicanparts.com/cgi-bin/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51678
-
Chuck

[CamB]

I get 35mm photos developed direct to CD (I get prints too).

I won't bother trying to post the full image size (1840x1232), but I have to reduce them a lot. I pay about US$4 extra to have them burned to CD (on top of the cost of having them developed). I figure I can get 100 rolls developed before I get to the cost of a digital camera

This is what I posted (unfortunately taken on a fairly overcast day, etc etc) after I downsized:



This is a "close-up" to the same size (480x320 pixels) without downsizing to give an idea of the resolution. This gave 40kb at medium jpeg setting:



I think the graininess (sp?) is due to 400 speed film and an average camera. I haven't tried to retouch or recolour the photos either. I am pretty happy with the quality (my photography skills leave a lot to be desired though )

[Bill Verburg]

I shot over 500 pics just at the 3 day Rennsport Reunion( would have shot more but ran out of batteries). My trusty old 35mms have been collecting dust since I got my first digicam, they are so handy, and easy to use. they are not even that expensive any longer, a Nikon 775 is ~$400, Canon S110 about the same. just get a nice big memory card to go with it, 64mb cf cards were ~$40 this past weekend.

The new digicms even do sound, that feature would have been nice at the Reunion.

[Jack Olsen]

65K? You're right, that what it says.

I guess this qualifies as a secret tip, then: if you choose the "Attach Multiple" option, you can post images up to 100K.

[Bill Verburg]

test of 100k limit

Thanks Jack!