I like photo prints just as much as anybody, without prints we wouldn’t have a major chunk of our business which is indeed scanning prints for people. But I do like the idea of sharing photos and scanning is very much about being able to share - often across continents.
Prints are there to be enjoyed, yet all too often they live in obscurity at the back of a drawer. I really liked this idea and I’m not too proud to admit I came across it on an American website - using glass jars as photo frames. So I dug out an old marmalade jar, thankfully it had been through our dishwasher (Brentwood Council won’t recycle dirty glass) and just slotted a print inside it. I was lucky as the print immediately slipped neatly into the flat side of the jar, no scissors and trimming needed. I put the jar on the window sill and it took on life with the light behind it.
I then took the photo out and turned it round, of course you want the opening of the jar down to stop it trapping the dust (don’t you?). I was quite pleased with the result, for no cost and about five minutes time. I think if I’d dug out three or four photos I could have made a nice family group. Perhaps if your could line a jar with some protective plastic you might be able to make a decorative and useful present.
When the children were younger I think they’d have enjoyed making cheap but appreciate presents for grandparents, or perhaps this could be one of those primary school projects for Mother’s Day.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
DPI - How much is enough?
From time to time we get asked about something called “dpi” - dots per inch. It’s a technical measure of how much data is used to convert a physical (analogue) image into a digital file. In some ways its easy to answer but often it gets very technical.
The easy answer is “enough”, and if you’re not technically minded feel free to click away now.
For the more geeky among us our basic print scanning service can deliver 300 dpi, 600 dpi or 1200 dpi. Let’s start with the original photos that we scan, they are printed at what is in digital terms 300 dpi. If you want to view images on a computer or TV scanning at 300 dpi will give you a more than acceptable result and will load pretty well in a photoframe. If you make reprints of the file at or a bit bigger than the original the image will be fine.
At 600 dpi you have a much bigger file, if you remember your geometry it’s four times bigger so that will be tougher to load into a photoframe, somewhat slower to load on a PC or DVD player but will deliver prints capable of being enlarged.
What about 1200 dpi? Yes, we can offer this but there’s a big “but”. We’ve done tests, as have a few clients, and in viewing terms on PC, TV/DVD, on Apple TV or similar photo streaming systems, there is no benefit. Technically your files will be 16 times bigger than those at 300 dpi giving you a big jpg file. It’s slow to load and hard to handle. Compared to scanning speeds of 300 dpi or 600 dpi at 1200 dpi you think the scanner has broken down it goes so slowly. For that reason we would typically charge more for 1200 dpi photo print scans. Frankly, it’s not worth the bother.
Yet if you look elsewhere you’ll see we offer very much higher dpi rates with jpg and tiff files when scanning negatives. How do we reconcile this? Well it’s all to do with the size of the original. Take a 35mm slide or negative, that’s very small so to get a decent size image or print a degree of enlargement is necessary. If we scanned that at 300 dpi it wouldn’t enlarge, so a four times enlargement would still only be a modest print (around postcard sized) and you’d need 1200 dpi for that. For that reason our Home slide and negative scanning runs at 2,000 dpi.
Is there a maximum? Well many people have suggested that the maximum amount of data that can be extracted from a 35mm slide or negative is 4,000 dpi. Nikon, one of the foremost names in photography and the maker of our 35mm scanners offer a maximum of 4,000 dpi on both their 35mm and medium format scanners. So that’s why we don’t go beyond 4,000 dpi.
What if the client is adamant in wanting a 4,000 dpi scan of an A4 sized print? I can’t think why it would be wanted or needed but we’re service business and in the final analysis the customer is always right.
The easy answer is “enough”, and if you’re not technically minded feel free to click away now.
For the more geeky among us our basic print scanning service can deliver 300 dpi, 600 dpi or 1200 dpi. Let’s start with the original photos that we scan, they are printed at what is in digital terms 300 dpi. If you want to view images on a computer or TV scanning at 300 dpi will give you a more than acceptable result and will load pretty well in a photoframe. If you make reprints of the file at or a bit bigger than the original the image will be fine.
At 600 dpi you have a much bigger file, if you remember your geometry it’s four times bigger so that will be tougher to load into a photoframe, somewhat slower to load on a PC or DVD player but will deliver prints capable of being enlarged.
What about 1200 dpi? Yes, we can offer this but there’s a big “but”. We’ve done tests, as have a few clients, and in viewing terms on PC, TV/DVD, on Apple TV or similar photo streaming systems, there is no benefit. Technically your files will be 16 times bigger than those at 300 dpi giving you a big jpg file. It’s slow to load and hard to handle. Compared to scanning speeds of 300 dpi or 600 dpi at 1200 dpi you think the scanner has broken down it goes so slowly. For that reason we would typically charge more for 1200 dpi photo print scans. Frankly, it’s not worth the bother.
Yet if you look elsewhere you’ll see we offer very much higher dpi rates with jpg and tiff files when scanning negatives. How do we reconcile this? Well it’s all to do with the size of the original. Take a 35mm slide or negative, that’s very small so to get a decent size image or print a degree of enlargement is necessary. If we scanned that at 300 dpi it wouldn’t enlarge, so a four times enlargement would still only be a modest print (around postcard sized) and you’d need 1200 dpi for that. For that reason our Home slide and negative scanning runs at 2,000 dpi.
Is there a maximum? Well many people have suggested that the maximum amount of data that can be extracted from a 35mm slide or negative is 4,000 dpi. Nikon, one of the foremost names in photography and the maker of our 35mm scanners offer a maximum of 4,000 dpi on both their 35mm and medium format scanners. So that’s why we don’t go beyond 4,000 dpi.
What if the client is adamant in wanting a 4,000 dpi scan of an A4 sized print? I can’t think why it would be wanted or needed but we’re service business and in the final analysis the customer is always right.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Photo Security
I was scanning photos and listening to BBC Essex yesterday and was struck by an item on the awful fires in Australia. An Essex woman was desperately trying to contact her brother and his family who lived in one of the worst hit areas, naturally she feared the worst.
The tale had a happy ending, the BBC managed to track down the lost brother who was safe and well. Brother and sister had spoken and the brother was interviewed about his experience. What struck me was what he said he’d picked up the moment they got the instruction to evacuate his house immediately. First was a leather jacket (to help protect him from the fire) and third was “important documents”.
Second was his family photos. From a personal and professional perspective I can understand that, but I also have conversations with people planning to digitise their family photo archive, people who would find it hard to assemble all their photos in several hours. So what we would we, thankfully away from the risk of bush fires, do if faced with flood or someother British disaster?
I can smugly say all my photos are safely backed up online thanks to Apple and MobileMe. Digital files can be recovered instantly, even if I lost my computers as long as I could get internet access I could download my jpgs and re-instate my photo library. You could do the same, but you have to act now.
The tale had a happy ending, the BBC managed to track down the lost brother who was safe and well. Brother and sister had spoken and the brother was interviewed about his experience. What struck me was what he said he’d picked up the moment they got the instruction to evacuate his house immediately. First was a leather jacket (to help protect him from the fire) and third was “important documents”.
Second was his family photos. From a personal and professional perspective I can understand that, but I also have conversations with people planning to digitise their family photo archive, people who would find it hard to assemble all their photos in several hours. So what we would we, thankfully away from the risk of bush fires, do if faced with flood or someother British disaster?
I can smugly say all my photos are safely backed up online thanks to Apple and MobileMe. Digital files can be recovered instantly, even if I lost my computers as long as I could get internet access I could download my jpgs and re-instate my photo library. You could do the same, but you have to act now.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Improving Photos
Last week we did some scanning, a lot of scanning, so come Friday evening we had watched thousands of images run through the scanners. Some were from professional photographers but the vast majority were from people like me - keen amateur snappers just wanting to capture life’s precious moments. But it was a lot of jpgs, quite a few tiffs and a good few miles of photo paper.
Relaxing weekend, met up with friends and relatives at a christening where the conversation turned to photography. What, was the question, can the ordinary person do to get better photos?
Having stood looking at the photos slide their way into the mouth of Mr Nikon, Mr Kodak and Mr Epson one simple step was obvious. When taking a photo simply move closer to the subject. Doesn’t matter if its and individual, a small group or a formal wedding image, most people just have too much photographic ‘noise’ around the main subject and as a result the picture is disappointing. Is it meant to be a group shot or a view of the church?
If you’re taking a photo just move one or two steps closer to the subject before you put the camera to your eye; if you have a zoom facility zap straight in then gently come out until the view screen shows only the subject. If you have taken the picture already (maybe its been scanned or it’s a digital photo) open it in your photo editing program and look for the Crop function. That will enable you to cut out all the extra, distracting bits that detract from the photo. Cut it out - in this case less is always more.
Relaxing weekend, met up with friends and relatives at a christening where the conversation turned to photography. What, was the question, can the ordinary person do to get better photos?
Having stood looking at the photos slide their way into the mouth of Mr Nikon, Mr Kodak and Mr Epson one simple step was obvious. When taking a photo simply move closer to the subject. Doesn’t matter if its and individual, a small group or a formal wedding image, most people just have too much photographic ‘noise’ around the main subject and as a result the picture is disappointing. Is it meant to be a group shot or a view of the church?
If you’re taking a photo just move one or two steps closer to the subject before you put the camera to your eye; if you have a zoom facility zap straight in then gently come out until the view screen shows only the subject. If you have taken the picture already (maybe its been scanned or it’s a digital photo) open it in your photo editing program and look for the Crop function. That will enable you to cut out all the extra, distracting bits that detract from the photo. Cut it out - in this case less is always more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)