Images - Resolution v File size?

[DiscoStu]

I'm guessing that you're probably talking Hasselblad and in 96 probably looking at about 30k.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ChrisR]

Chris R

Have you considered attending a suitable 'computer course' to help get you back to enjoying your photography - in digital format?

Yes, and was politely told by the instructor that I was wasting his and my time, as he could see that I would never get it.
How right he was, as I have tried many times since, but failed to understand, what to me is a black art.

Take care, I take my hat off and envy all those that can master this black art.

Chris.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

My sympathy there - I had a decent film camera - a Minolta 800si - and wondered whether to get a Sony alpha so I could use the lenses, but having got lost before the end of the first page of "An Idiot's Guide to Windows 8" I changed my mind.

 

[mseries]

Do you really need to learn stuff all at once to take pictures with a digital camera ? Surely DSLRs have some sort of 'auto' mode that will produce a reasonable JPEG or TIFF or something that a computer can view without any need for post processing. OK I realise the photography buffs may not consider this proper photography but it's a start, then you can play about with settings one at a time.

 

[bugbear]

Do you really need to learn stuff all at once to take pictures with a digital camera ? Surely DSLRs have some sort of 'auto' mode that will produce a reasonable JPEG or TIFF or something that a computer can view without any need for post processing. OK I realise the photography buffs may not consider this proper photography but it's a start, then you can play about with settings one at a time.

If you're knowledgable in film photography, you'll find any modern DSLR has controls for

• Aperture
• Shutter speed
• ISO (you now set the ISO instead of changing film)
• Focus (either auto or manual)

So that should be a simple transition.

And anyone who can get their head round some of the Black Magic of film
(expose for the highlights, develop for the shadows, or is it the other way round, "hard paper", "soft paper")
should find stuff like Adobe LightRoom both trivial and a joy. It does all the same things,
but interactively, reversibly, and with preview!

BugBear

 

[Harbo]

And you can see immediately what you have taken - rubbish or otherwise.

Rod

 

[Rhossydd]

Do you really need to learn stuff all at once to take pictures with a digital camera ?

No, you can use them as expensive 'point 'n shoots' if you want.

There are hundreds of millions of people using phones and digital cameras, often manipulating results as they please and getting decent results. They're not all IT experts, the vast majority of them don't have much of a clue about the technology of photography or IT, but just get on with it because they want to take pictures.

If someone decides they not going to learn something, they won't.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

If you're knowledgeable in film photography, you'll find any modern DSLR has controls for
Aperture
Shutter speed
ISO (you now set the ISO instead of changing film)
Focus (either auto or manual)

So that should be a simple transition. ------- BB


It's not the camera I have the problem with - it's the computer. I have absolutely no interest in computers. My daughter will run through something with me that takes say five steps - I will have forgotten at least one of them within five minutes. Even if written down, I will get lost somewhere in the middle. I use the computer for absolute necessities, I find it a pain.

 

[mseries]

You really don't need to know much about computers to down load images from a camera and edit them in GIMP or Photoshop or something. These packages are complex because they have an awful lot of features - that's always the case. If you are not interested in using a computer though I can see there'll be little motivation to learn.

 

[ChrisR]

If you're knowledgeable in film photography, you'll find any modern DSLR has controls for
Aperture
Shutter speed
ISO (you now set the ISO instead of changing film)
Focus (either auto or manual)

So that should be a simple transition. ------- BB


It's not the camera I have the problem with - it's the computer. I have absolutely no interest in computers. My daughter will run through something with me that takes say five steps - I will have forgotten at least one of them within five minutes. Even if written down, I will get lost somewhere in the middle. I use the computer for absolute necessities, I find it a pain.

Plus one.

Camera no problem, computer ](*,)

Chris.

 

[mseries]

really ? Maybe you are being too ambitious. Removing the SD card from the camera, pushing it into a reader on the computer and viewing the image isn't too hard is it ?

 

[Mark Hancock]

Hi Mark,
You can get a free editing photos software called- 'Paint'. If you double click on your image it will be opened in Paint and look very large. Double click on 'Resize' and it will bring up a panel with various options to change the image either in pixels or persentage. If you are on persentage and change the 100% to 20%, that will reduce the image you see to a much smaller size. Then double click on the top left down arrow and you then have a screen that allows you to save or print etc. If you click on 'save as' it will bring up the location where it originated and you can give it a name and identify it as a small image (R) for reduced or S for small - whatever you like. You than finish up with the original image and the reduced image. The reduced image can be posted on line or wherever.

Thats for Paint, but other image software will do similar things. Try whatever you have , or download thr free Paint.

Malcolm

Malcolm

I'm looking at increasing file size rather than reducing. Having said that I looked at my version of Paint and it doesn't have a resize option. However I've Irfan View and it does have resizing options and have found I can easily increase sizes whilst still keeping the dpi resolution.

Just had another request for an image and using Irfan View doubled file size, sent it and they seem happy. So maybe that's the answer?

 

[ChrisR]

really ? Maybe you are being too ambitious. Removing the SD card from the camera, pushing it into a reader on the computer and viewing the image isn't too hard is it ?

If only that simple, but it’s not, or not on my computer running Windows 10.

Having said that, I never had any success with previous versions of Windows.

Chris.

 

[mseries]

really ? Maybe you are being too ambitious. Removing the SD card from the camera, pushing it into a reader on the computer and viewing the image isn't too hard is it ?

If only that simple, but it’s not, or not on my computer running Windows 10.

Having said that, I never had any success with previous versions of Windows.

Chris.

this is simple stuff - you don't need to know about computers to do this. I am assuming you have a card reader that works. You push the SD card into the slot, wait a few moments, open Windows Explorer (is it still called that in 10 ?), what do you see ? I am expecting you see on the left a new 'drive' label something like "Removable Drive F:" NB I have never used Windows 10 my ideas are based on 7 and Linux

 

[petermillard]

Just had another request for an image and using Irfan View doubled file size, sent it and they seem happy. So maybe that's the answer?

Not really; upsizing an image gets you a bigger file, but it doesn't add any more detail; re-scanning it at a higher resolution would give you more of the detail in the photograph - like shooting the original on large-format instead of 35mm. They may be happy enough at the moment because they haven't looked very closely at the file - or (as mentioned further up the thread by others) that the person responsible for sourcing the scans doesn't really have enough knowledge of the processes.

HTH Pete

 

[petermillard]

I'm guessing that you're probably talking Hasselblad and in 96 probably looking at about 30k.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just about spot on - did you Google that, lol? I paid the best part of £26k + VAT for a Leaf DCB ll, including all the connectors, fibre-optic cables, expansion cards and adapter plate for my Mamiya RZ67 - not a Hasselblad, never a Hasselblad!

Pete

 

[bugbear]

I'm guessing that you're probably talking Hasselblad and in 96 probably looking at about 30k.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just about spot on - did you Google that, lol? I paid the best part of £26k + VAT for a Leaf DCB ll, including all the connectors, fibre-optic cables, expansion cards and adapter plate for my Mamiya RZ67 - not a Hasselblad, never a Hasselblad!

Pete

Hasselblad cameras were (nearly... :wink: ) affordable. It's only a box.

A working set of lenses OTOH... :shock:

BugBear

 

[Rhossydd]

I looked at my version of Paint and it doesn't have a resize option.

You were probably looking at Windows Paint, not Paint.net (www.getpaint.net) which I assume is the program Alexam is referring to. (One has to wonder how smart the software authors are if they chose to name their program the same as Microsoft's own graphics utility that has been in Windows since the beginning.)
Pain.net is sort of competent, but the lack of colour management, not even hidden behind the scenes, makes it unsuitable for any serious work.

My usual recommendation for anyone wanting a good image editor is to keep an eye on Amazon for a cheap copy of Adobe Photoshop Elements, it's regularly offered at a substantial discount there.
PSE has three different modes at it's simplest 'Quick' mode it's dead easy to use, but the guided and expert modes offer a a good tool set and all are capable of proper professional work. Adobe also have many great video tutorials that will help you get the best out of it.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

really ? Maybe you are being too ambitious. Removing the SD card from the camera, pushing it into a reader on the computer and viewing the image isn't too hard is it ?

... and from there on in?

 

[dickm]

I always scanned at 4000 dpi using a Canon CanoScan US 4000 slide scanner. The resultant files were 6000x4000 and about 24mb. Maybe something like that is what they want?

Belatedly (it's something to do with age!) I've been thinking of digitising at least the worthwhile images from 50 years with a camera, and considering getting a decent-ish scanner. The problem is that there seems to be an enormous leap in cost from the ubiquitous £30-ish 5Mp models to anything better. On top of which, many of the better ones on the secondhand market seem to be attached via SCSI, and Windows 10 would throw a wobbly at the very thought.

Any suggestions for something in the gap that might be effective but affordable? My desktop has Firewire, which might be relevant?

Can any of the flatbed scanners do an adequate job on 35mm? More compromise, but I still have some nice images on 6x6 and 6X4.5 from the Super Ikontas and a flatbed can cope with those where a slide scanner couldn't.

In the meantime, a lashup with macro lens on the Pentax DSLR and some downspout tubing works at a pinch!