Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Photo quality - onto paper or onto CD? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t405670-photo-quality-onto-paper-or-onto-cd.html)

Theseeker 09-25-2004 11:54 AM

Photo quality - onto paper or onto CD?
 
I am about to buy a colour aerial photo of a sixty square mile area.
The firm supplying these charges more for the image on CD than it does
for a printed photograph. Don't ask me why, I've queried it and the
differential is vast. Obviously I am considering buying the printed
version, scanning it and saving it to CD for future
ehancement/enlargement. Will I lose any quality with this conversion?
I have a SCSI scanner and Photoshop so I am confident I could get
about 1440 dpi.
Would I be better off buying a negative and getting a professional to
digitize it?



Joseph Meehan 09-25-2004 02:14 PM

Re: Photo quality - onto paper or onto CD?
 
Theseeker wrote:
> I am about to buy a colour aerial photo of a sixty square mile area.
> The firm supplying these charges more for the image on CD than it does
> for a printed photograph. Don't ask me why, I've queried it and the
> differential is vast. Obviously I am considering buying the printed
> version, scanning it and saving it to CD for future
> ehancement/enlargement. Will I lose any quality with this conversion?
> I have a SCSI scanner and Photoshop so I am confident I could get
> about 1440 dpi.
> Would I be better off buying a negative and getting a professional to
> digitize it?


We don't know how much data is on the CD vs. how much may be on the
print. My guess is the CD contains more information than the print. BTW
what size is the print. An 8x10 is going to be able to hold far less
information than a 48x60.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math




Alan Browne 09-25-2004 08:08 PM

Re: Photo quality - onto paper or onto CD?
 
Theseeker wrote:
> I am about to buy a colour aerial photo of a sixty square mile area.
> The firm supplying these charges more for the image on CD than it does
> for a printed photograph. Don't ask me why, I've queried it and the
> differential is vast. Obviously I am considering buying the printed
> version, scanning it and saving it to CD for future
> ehancement/enlargement. Will I lose any quality with this conversion?
> I have a SCSI scanner and Photoshop so I am confident I could get
> about 1440 dpi.
> Would I be better off buying a negative and getting a professional to
> digitize it?



What are the various technical parameters regarding the print and the CD image?
(Size, pixels x,y)

Do they say what size the negative(positive) is that covers that area?

Most prints yield about 400 dpi at best. (B&W aerial photography done on high
end cameras and repro equipment might go to 600 or so). So the larger the print
they sell, the better.

I'm curious: What is your use of the image going to be?

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

PlaneGuy 09-26-2004 01:25 AM

Re: Photo quality - onto paper or onto CD?
 
Its simple as to why they charge more for the CD than the print - on the CD
you have a perfect copy of the image that you can make prints from (I assume
that the CD includes a licence to do that). On the print, you have bought a
print, and I presume NO LICENCE to reproduce the image - ie, by you scanning
and reprinting the image, you are breaching copyright. (* all legal
disclaimers apply)

If you were to by the negative, I guess that the price would be higher than
the CD alone.

"Theseeker" <seeker@aol.com> wrote in message
news:51nal05k29uui42rvr6hp1bctadq0turv9@4ax.com...
> I am about to buy a colour aerial photo of a sixty square mile area.
> The firm supplying these charges more for the image on CD than it does
> for a printed photograph. Don't ask me why, I've queried it and the
> differential is vast. Obviously I am considering buying the printed
> version, scanning it and saving it to CD for future
> ehancement/enlargement. Will I lose any quality with this conversion?
> I have a SCSI scanner and Photoshop so I am confident I could get
> about 1440 dpi.
> Would I be better off buying a negative and getting a professional to
> digitize it?
>
>




BJ 09-26-2004 11:01 AM

Re: Photo quality - onto paper or onto CD?
 
> What are the various technical parameters regarding the print and the CD image?
> (Size, pixels x,y)
>
> Do they say what size the negative(positive) is that covers that area?
>
> Most prints yield about 400 dpi at best. (B&W aerial photography done on high
> end cameras and repro equipment might go to 600 or so). So the larger the print
> they sell, the better.
>
> I'm curious: What is your use of the image going to be?
>
> Cheers,
> Alan


The print is color A3 size. This firm joins dozens of grid squares
together according to the land area required. I'll have to ask them
Monday the comparitive resolution of CD and print. I'll be reproducing
the view onto plastic for vacuum forming. Potential viewers will only
be seeing A3 size print, they will not be zooming in, unless they use
a magnifying glass!

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?BenOne=A9?= 09-27-2004 04:34 AM

Re: Photo quality - onto paper or onto CD?
 
Theseeker wrote:
> I am about to buy a colour aerial photo of a sixty square mile area.
> The firm supplying these charges more for the image on CD than it does
> for a printed photograph. Don't ask me why, I've queried it and the
> differential is vast. Obviously I am considering buying the printed
> version, scanning it and saving it to CD for future
> ehancement/enlargement. Will I lose any quality with this conversion?
> I have a SCSI scanner and Photoshop so I am confident I could get
> about 1440 dpi.
> Would I be better off buying a negative and getting a professional to
> digitize it?
>
>


I believe you pay more for the "negative" because you are getting the source and
can make as many prints as you like. Most film photographers charge extra to
supply the film.

--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.


BJ 09-27-2004 07:11 PM

Re: Photo quality - onto paper or onto CD?
 
"PlaneGuy" <PlaneGuy13@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<41561a8e@duster.adelaide.on.net>...
> Its simple as to why they charge more for the CD than the print - on the CD
> you have a perfect copy of the image that you can make prints from (I assume
> that the CD includes a licence to do that). On the print, you have bought a
> print, and I presume NO LICENCE to reproduce the image - ie, by you scanning
> and reprinting the image, you are breaching copyright. (* all legal
> disclaimers apply)
>
> If you were to by the negative, I guess that the price would be higher than
> the CD alone.
>

There are no licensing conditions on either version

theseeker

BJ 09-29-2004 06:37 PM

Re: Photo quality - onto paper or onto CD?
 
>
> I believe you pay more for the "negative" because you are getting the source and
> can make as many prints as you like. Most film photographers charge extra to
> supply the film.


The supplier is not being very helpful on the dpi issue. Licensing
does not seem to come into their equation. They say one can "zoom in"
on the CD version, there are many more pixels than on the print.
Given that I only intend reprinting the A3 print many times without
magnification/zooming it seems I could avoid the CD and it's price and
stick with the paper (matt) copy?

Yehuda Paradise 10-04-2004 08:59 PM

Re: Photo quality - onto paper or onto CD?
 
prints are analog, cds are digital. anytime you convert from one to the
other, you lose information no matter how costly your equipment.
"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoeS_PAM_2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:T2f5d.7689$uk1.7456@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> Theseeker wrote:
> > I am about to buy a colour aerial photo of a sixty square mile area.
> > The firm supplying these charges more for the image on CD than it does
> > for a printed photograph. Don't ask me why, I've queried it and the
> > differential is vast. Obviously I am considering buying the printed
> > version, scanning it and saving it to CD for future
> > ehancement/enlargement. Will I lose any quality with this conversion?
> > I have a SCSI scanner and Photoshop so I am confident I could get
> > about 1440 dpi.
> > Would I be better off buying a negative and getting a professional to
> > digitize it?

>
> We don't know how much data is on the CD vs. how much may be on the
> print. My guess is the CD contains more information than the print. BTW
> what size is the print. An 8x10 is going to be able to hold far less
> information than a 48x60.
>
> --
> Joseph E. Meehan
>
> 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
>
>
>





All times are GMT. The time now is 06:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.