Photo quality - onto paper or onto CD?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Theseeker, Sep 25, 2004.

  1. Theseeker

    Theseeker Guest

    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?
    Theseeker, Sep 25, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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
    Joseph Meehan, Sep 25, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Theseeker

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.--
    Alan Browne, Sep 25, 2004
    #3
  4. Theseeker

    PlaneGuy Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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?
    >
    >
    PlaneGuy, Sep 26, 2004
    #4
  5. Theseeker

    BJ Guest

    > 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!
    BJ, Sep 26, 2004
    #5
  6. 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.
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?BenOne=A9?=, Sep 27, 2004
    #6
  7. Theseeker

    BJ Guest

    "PlaneGuy" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > 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, Sep 27, 2004
    #7
  8. Theseeker

    BJ Guest

    >
    > 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?
    BJ, Sep 29, 2004
    #8
  9. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:T2f5d.7689$...
    > 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
    >
    >
    >
    Yehuda Paradise, Oct 4, 2004
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jeff Furber

    Archival photo quality paper

    Jeff Furber, Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    6,354
    Patrick L.
    Jul 12, 2003
  2. Alexco

    Photo paper - is IBM paper ok?

    Alexco, Oct 5, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    569
    Rafe B.
    Oct 6, 2003
  3. Giorgis

    Roll of photo quality paper.

    Giorgis, Feb 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    511
    Scott Coutts
    Feb 4, 2004
  4. Fred McKenzie

    best photo quality paper for digi prints

    Fred McKenzie, Jul 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    652
  5. Susan B

    Lasting Quality of Photo Paper

    Susan B, Nov 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    739
    Arthur Entlich
    Nov 11, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page