Are my digital photos high resolution ?

[Dan Derrico]

I have a Fuji S2 digital camera which delivers photos up to 6.1 megapixels.

On two different occasions, my clients have told me that my photos were low res and prints would be blurry -- according to their printing store.

The files were delivered on a CD in jpeg format at 72 dpi. Is it up to me to set it to 300 dpi or should the printer know how to do this ? Usually I don't change the format to 300 dpi because it increases the size of the file and all of the photos don't fit on one CD. Also, the client want the pictures for the web, too, and so the files I send are somewhat in the middle.

Am I doing something wrong ?

My typical jpeg file -- as downloaded straight from the camera -- is 4.5 MB at 72 dpi. ( The pixels are 4256 x 2848) When I change the image size to 300 dpi in Photoshop Elements, the resulting file is 46 megbytes at 300 dpi and the pixels change to 17733 x 11867.

So what happens when I go to Photoshop and change the resolution to 300 dpi ? Am I not creating a file suitable for printing at 300 dpi ? If I can get a sharp, clear, detailed 11 x14 print from that big fat file, have I not in effect made a high res image-- or the equivalent ?

In some ways, isn't resolution just a setting? However, the quality of the result depends on the information in the original file.
A file that is 100K can also be also printed at 300 dpi -- but you will get a lousy 11 x14. In general, a "larger" file may result in a better 11 x14.

Also -- as an aside -- WHY do my files get larger when I change to 300 dpi ? Where do the extra pixels come from?

Thanks!

[Mac McDougald]

First of all, resize/resample, print size/pixel size, and the like is the
basis of digital image manipulation. Perhaps study up in archives here
and at scantips.com, where the subject usually is made clearer for
newbies.

However, 4256 x 2848 is 12 MegaPixels, so I don't know how you are
getting that from your 6 MP camera? Does it have an additional "high rez"
option whereby IT is upsampling/interpolating?

Which answers your question: "where do the extra pixels come from?" They
are interpolated (made up, created) by sampling from surrounding area.
Generally of limited value, often not good at all.

The simplest trick is to use your existing original pixels only. When you
change to 300ppi, uncheck resample, and it will give you the largest
print area at 300ppi that you can make, using original pixels only.

Mac

[Raymond Robillard]

Mac,

"However, 4256 x 2848 is 12 MegaPixels, so I don't know how you are
getting that from your 6 MP camera?"

For your information, the S2 is using interpolated, and indeed, produces pictures of that size.

Source : [url]www.dpreview.com[/url]

Ray

[Mac McDougald]

Hmmm...

Is the scuttlebutt that the interpolation is *good* (ie, better than
could be done in Photoshop?

Mac

[Raymond Robillard]

Mac.. you've just managed to teach me two new words.. (unabridged and scuttlebutt)

Thanks :)

Ray

[Leen Koper]

About the Fuji S2.
It is a wonderful camera. It is a 6 Mp camera indeed, but Fuji uses a different (diagonal) grid pattern that allows a slightly more accurate system of interpolation. This way they end up with an image file twice as large as other 6 Mp cameras

Ray, Fuji produces both for the mass market and the absolute top segment of the market. They produce for Hasselblad the XPan camera and the new H-1 system.
Moreover, their new digital cameras with the improved chip have an extended exposure latitude. And we all know what happens in the overexposed parts of an image.....
I am eagerly waiting for a new Fuji SLR with the same chip. If such an S3 will become available, I will be among the first ones to buy it! (Although, it moight be wise to wait until the introduction price has fallen to normal levels)

Mac, thanks for teaching me a new S-word.

Leen

[Chuck Snyder]

A friend of mine who's a professional photographer has embraced the S2 as
her camera of choice when she shoots digital - which is an increasing
segment of her work. I don't know whether she uses the interpolation
capability; I rather doubt it unless she's called upon to make very large
prints - in which case I'm guessing she's still using her Nikons and Mamiyas
with slide film...

Chuck

[Joe Henry1000]

PhotoDan? Is that you?

[Quaoar]

Leen Koper wrote:

> Chuck, I don't use my Minolta, Bronica or Mamiya film cameras
> anymore, although I really do care for image quality.
>
> I know theoratically film has more lines per millimeter, but in
> wedding and portrait photography my subjects usually don't have lines
> per mm. This discussion of different resolutions is IMHO mainly an
> academic discussion and hardly based on practical evidence.
>
> Optical sharpness in an image is based on sharpness at the edges.
> And, even in an interpolated image, digital gives the impression to
> be sharper than conventional as there is no diffusion because of
> grain.
>
> That's why digital is much more critical than film and I just only
> seldom work without a sturdy tripod.
>
> I might be wrong with my theory, but this interpolation works for me
> and no client has ever complained since I went digital about 7 months
> ago
>
> Leen

Emphasis on the "sturdy tripod". I've found that most of my G3 "focus"
problems disappear with a tripod. There's just not enough mass in the
camera to prevent shake. Now, if I can get the G3 remote control to
actually work, I will be a happy guy!

Q

[Ben T]

Quaoar

> Now, if I can get the G3 remote control to actually work, I will be a

happy guy!

I finally got my G3 remote control to actually work when I inserted the
battery properly. I was inserting it upside down. Only the photo of this is
accurate in the manual.

Ben

[Stu Bloom]

"Scuttlebutt" ???





It's in any unabridged dict. "Rumor, gossip, opinion"




Actually entered the written language in 1805 as a nautical term, meaning a keg or cash of drinking water. Later, when technology improved, a drinking fountain. In 1901, recorded as a U.S. Nautical term, rumor or gossip, i.e. that type of conversation exchanged when standing around a scuttlebutt. Per the OED.

Still in common use in both its meanings in the Navy. No sailor would think of calling a scuttlebutt a "drinking fountain," just as he (or she, nowadays) would never call a deck a "floor" or a bulkhead a "wall."

Now see all the fascinating stuff you can learn right here in the Photoshop Elements forum? ;-)

[Chris Tuithof]

Is it possible to import images directly from m y camera into photoshop? Please help me out here. [email]chris.tuithof@hetnet.nl[/email]

[Beth Haney]

Chris, the answer to your question isn't as straightforward as you might hope. Elements doesn't store any images; the files will have to either be placed on your hard drive or you will have to open Elements and access them on the card through the File>Open command. Otherwise, the camera probably came with specific software for downloading.

Another piece of advice that's given by us forum regulars - whether or not we're asked :) - is to develop the habit of using a card reader instead of doing direct downloads from the camera to the computer. Readers are faster and safer, meaning there's no risk of sudden disconnects or losses of power that could damage the card, the camera, or both. They've also gotten very inexpensive. You can find lots of them available for as little as $10.

If my interpretation of your post still leaves questions, please repost with more information about your camera and your platform and OS.

[Jane Carter]

My (free) Lexar card reader wouldn't read anything but the USB enabled Lexar cards. I thought that my other cards (San Diskand others)couldn't be read by a card reader, so continued to use the camera, but no, that's just the Lexar Jumpshot reader. I had no clue, so called the camera store, and also found out here, that all I need is a cheap generic card reader and it will read ALL my cards, old and new, Lexar or not. Marketing?
They had me fooled for a while.
Jane

[Chuck Snyder]

Jane, I was in CompUSA today - lots of card readers to choose from, many in
designer colors and most very reasonably priced. One that's very
interesting - the Dazzle Zio! - comes with software that will make photo
slideshows and burn CD's which play on DVD players; price: $14.99 after
rebate.

Chuck

[Nancy S]

Jane,

$15-$20 for a Reader is all it takes. You could spend more for one which reads every card format. I paid $18 for a SanDisk Reader which interfaces for Compact Flash and Smart Media, works like a charm.

Nancy

[Jane Carter]

Thanks! I am off to town today, and will get a card reader, and a carrying case for my new CP4300.
Jane