A question for restoration volunteers

[kjohnson]

I'd changed the resolution to 300 on one and, oops, left the image at its original 4x5' size (or whatever it was) which turned the image into a 'puter coughing, nearly un-openable 1gig+ file.

[Ausimax]

Dave,

I have recently been working on some 6x4 and 7x5 photos and find detail scant at times especially photos with groups of people and face damage, would it be possible to have the option to download these at a higher resolution?

At present I sometimes crop out the damaged face and double it's size with Photoshop to get more detail to work with, however the end results after down-sizing again are not always predictable or satisfactory.

8x10 and larger are not to bad, and any larger files would swamp my computer, but with these smaller files it would be a help.


Max

[glennab]

Good morning

It just hit me that it doesn't matter whether the images come to us at 72dpi and at a large dimension or at 300 dpi and at the original size.  The file size doesn't change until we start adding layers, layer effects, adjustment layers, etc.  I've always read that it's best to adjust photos at 100% of their actual size, because then the computer doesn't have to interpolate, and possibly distort, any work that's been done when it's downsized again.  At actual size what you see is close to what will print.  I suspect the images were originally photographed at the size we receive them, so if they were brought up to a higher resolution (with resampling), we'd have compromised images (I suppose that's a moot point. How much more compromised can they be?).  Admin would probably know better whether it would be enough to affect the prints.  The only way I know of to enlarge photos and keep their clarity at a high resolution is to apply software that uses fractals to interpolate.  They work very well, but I think they're all pretty costly and probably wouldn't make enough difference in the final to be worth it.

Personally, I think the computer companies of our choice should be willing to GIVE each of us the highest end hardware they have!  Then SIZE wouldn't matter!  (I tried that -- no dice!)

And so she blathers on and will be late for work.

Have a wonderful day!

Glenna

[Johnboy]

I am with Ziaphra. I too have 512. So would opt for original size.

JB

[Ausimax]

Hi,

Glenna and JB, I only suggested it for small images and as a choice, I only have 768 RAM and my computer struggles when I have an 8x10 open with 6-8 layers, but with small images when they contain multiple faces there is not much pixel info to work with.

72dpi or 300dpi makes now difference to your image - until it is sent to the printer, when I get an image I convert it to 300dpi (with Resize switched off) then when you are working on the image and hit the print size button it displays it on your monitor at the size it will be printed, or near to, handy for checking your work as it will be seen by the owner.


Max

[klassylady25]

Perhaps there is a way to offer both?   :loveit:

Candice

[Johnboy]

I received an e-mail newsletter from Photoshelter yesterday. Part of the "What's new..." section was this:

Lastly, we've tweaked our image download tool to retain the original size and resolution when downloading an image from PhotoShelter. Now when you upload a photo at 400dpi, it will also download at 400dpi.

Just wondered if this has any affect on our future downloads?


JB

[kstruve]

I just downloaded an image the other day and it did come into Photoshop as 8X10" @ 300 pixels per inch, so I think it's working correctly.

Kurt