.jpeg, vrs .psd or .tiff & when Resize resolution?

[peter k]

#1---
I shoot film and have it scanned and it comes as a .jpeg file on a CD. (Walgreens)
Now when I edit it and have only one layer, but will most likely edit it more in the future, should I save it again as a .jpeg, or something else like a .psd or .tiff right away?
...and which one would be better.. .psd or .tiff?

#2---
When should I Resize the resolution?
Right away when I begin edits, or to keep size down until I'm ready to print it, and then change it to 300 pixels/inch?
Does it make a difference in the edit?
---TIA p.

[Juergen D]

If you are planning on further editing, yes, save in PSD or TIFF format, both of which are non-lossy. It probably does not matter which.

The resolution in PPI is determined by the intended printed output size. Change your finished image to some size, e.g. 6x4, then check the resulting resolution. If it is anywhere in a 240 - 400 PPI range, leave it alone and print. If it is substantially lower, it may be necessary to increase the PPI, which can be done via Resampling.

Juergen

[K:M]

Ditto Juergen with the addition that it's probably best to save it in PSD particularly if you have a lot of edit layers and think you'll be going back to edit again. I tend to like to keep a handle on the edit layers, which the PSD format preserves.

Export to TIFF or JPG (Low compression - 10-12) in the final pre-print step.

K:M

[peter k]

thanks for the replies... but still not clear if you get a better edit if you raise the resolution, or not, or if it makes no difference.

[Karin Sue]

Just changing the resolution--no resampling, pixel size remains the same--makes absolutely no difference to the image. All the resolution does is determine how many pixels are printed per inch. So changing the resolution (without resampling) just changes the print size of an image. If you have a 300 x 300 pixel image and set the resolution to 100 it will print out as a 3 inch square, at 300ppi it will print as a one inch square.

If you change the image with resampling PSE will either make up or discard pixels to match the resolution/size you choose. This is obviously affecting the image.

As Juergen mentioned, you want to check your resolution before printing to be sure that during cropping etc, you didn't get it too low for printing at your desired size.

If I am just printing a photo I let the printer deal with the resolution and don't change it. If I am making a photo project: adding text, pasting in bits of other photos, clipart, etc. I go ahead and set the resolution to 300 at the largest size I am likely to want to print when I start the project.

[Juergen D]

...the edit layers, which the PSD format preserves.

So does the TIFF format. :)

Juergen

[peter k]

ok... and yes I do text on the photo, (landscapes) so normally the largest size I would print would be probably 8.5x11, but there is a chance I may want to do much larger. The largest size currently that they come in off the CD is 12"+ by 18"+ with a resolution of 96. So what I have been doing is changing that to 300 and then editing. But it makes a much larger file. Especially in .psd or .tiff.

I take it to understand that this is correct procedure.

Now the Resample Image is checked, but I don't do anything with it. In the menu next to it its states 'Bicubic'. I never paid any attention to this. ... Is this what you mean by re-sample.. or is outside of Image/Resize?

[Juergen D]

Your image file is rather small to start with. 12 x 18" at 96 PPI comes to 1152 x 1728 pixels, which is less then 2MP. Any digital camera today will give you a better resolution (5 to 8 MP and up).

The first thing I suggest is to talk to the people at Walgreen's and see if they can't do a better job with the scanning.

Now, if you have Resample checked and change the resolution to 300PPI, you'll have an image that is 3600 x 5400 pixels. All the additional pixels have been added (made up) and that will seriously affect the quality of your image.

Your originals really do not lend themselves to a print size larger than 4 x 6, maybe 5 x 7.

Juergen

[Karin Sue]

Yes, resampling is done in the image>resize dialog box. Uncheck the resample box (the pixels remain fixed) and see how changing the resolution affects the size and how changing the size affects the resolution.

The bicubic, bilinear, nearest neighbor, are the different methods you can choose for Elements to use when adding/deleting pixels when the resample box is checked. I usually just leave it on bicubic.

12 x 18 at 96 ppi is only 1728 x 1152 pixels.

That will give you only about a 4x6 at 300 ppi.

Check your camera settings. It may be set to save space on your memory card. If you want to print at 8x10 plus you should be getting as many pixels as possible in your original. Set your camera to maximum quality. Memory cards have gotten cheaper so you can invest in a larger card.

I am usually making collages of many photos which involves downsampling to 300 when fit on a page. When I am making a project which involves upsampling (as you are) I may set the resolution to 200 or 240 on the theory that less "created pixels" is better. Not positive that it makes much difference. There are some programs out there that do a great job of upsampling. If that is something you do often you might want to look into it. There have been some good things said about Essentials on this forum. I don't remember the names of the others.

The actual best ppi for printing depends on the printer. 300 is a common default project size but if you know the best for your particular printer go with that. You can usually get a good enough print at 200 or even 150. 300 is a good default choice because it allows some leeway if you end up printing at a larger size than planned.

[Juergen D]

Karin,
Peter shoots on film and has it scanned at Walgreen's...

Juergen

[Karin Sue]

Juergen,

I didn't notice till after I'd posted that he was working from scans.

I have noticed that when I get images on cd from film they are never very large and the info when you drop off the film never says what quality digital images you will get. Seems more designed for email/web posting than printing.

Peter K

Start watching the ads for a nice digital camera. Even as just an auxillary to your film camera. Digital saves a bunch on film & processing.

I've also seen some good deals on film scanners. Maybe you'd be better off scanning your film yourself.

[peter k]

> All the additional pixels have been added (made up) and that will seriously affect the quality of your image.

Yikes... here some how I thought.. thats what I get for thinking.. ;-) ...of course now I understand it was never there to begin with, so where else will it come from but smoke. Makes sence now whay some of the blue sky is so grainy in an 8x10, now I understand, it isn't just the ASA of the film either. May have two things working against me.
I called Walgreens, person on duty didn't think it could be changed, I'll talk to the in charge tomorrow and see. Called a 'Pro' shop, and their scans are 4.5 meg or 25 meg. The 4.5 meg good to a 8x10 he said.
Yet nothing is lost... I have the negatives.. the one's I've worked on and like I can have rescanned, and hopefully the notes on what I did to them will get me to the same location. Since all but the latest roll was print film, and a lot of shots of poor quality, as just beginning to shoot pictures again, the CD allowed me to see them and work them in El 6. Both positive learning curves that take time.

For those who are wondering why film... vell.. got the old camera, (dear ole dad's with lenses and filters ect) and somehow that camera gets my creative juices going. It's not instant gratification. You really have to take a shot. At one sunset, a friend of mine, with his digital, deleting as he went, and ended up with 125 shots to look over later. I took 50.
Ya got to slow down. Stop and look. I have my digital, but this old Nikon F Photmic Tn, just does something. If your shaking your head, so am I. Go figar. ;-)

Thanks for all your replies, it sure helps.

[peter k]

> All the additional pixels have been added (made up) and that will seriously affect the quality of your image.

Yikes... here some how I thought.. thats what I get for thinking.. ;-) ...of course now I understand it was never there to begin with, so where else will it come from but smoke. Makes sence now whay some of the blue sky is so grainy in an 8x10, now I understand, it isn't just the ASA of the film either. May have two things working against me.
I called Walgreens, person on duty didn't think it could be changed, I'll talk to the in charge tomorrow and see. Called a 'Pro' shop, and their scans are 4.5 meg or 25 meg. The 4.5 meg good to a 8x10 he said.
Yet nothing is lost... I have the negatives.. the one's I've worked on and like I can have rescanned, and hopefully the notes on what I did to them will get me to the same location. Since all but the latest roll was print film, and a lot of shots of poor quality, as just beginning to shoot pictures again, the CD allowed me to see them and work them in El 6. Both positive learning curves that take time.

For those who are wondering why film... vell.. got the old camera, (dear ole dad's with lenses and filters ect) and somehow that camera gets my creative juices going. It's not instant gratification. You really have to take a shot. At one sunset, a friend of mine, with his digital, deleting as he went, and ended up with 125 shots to look over later. I took 50.
Ya got to slow down. Stop and look. I have my digital, but this old Nikon F Photmic Tn, just does something. If your shaking your head, so am I. Go figar. ;-)

Thanks for all your replies, it sure helps.

[wlc]

You will get the best results when resizing to a larger size if you use bicubic, when reducing the size of the original use bilinear.

I did some work recently for a friend that wanted to have a vendor print on wooden tees for golf balls, and on golf ball markers for advertising purposes, the printer insisted on 1000 ppi for him to give the best results.

I never use jpg when sending to an outside printer.

[K:M]

So does the TIFF format. :)

Juergen

Indeed, this is true.

K:M

[Karin Sue]

Peter,

I know there are people out there who still use film for various reasons, especially if they have a good film camera.

However it is possible to discipline yourself with a digital and take only twice as many pictures as you need, not 10 times. Use a smaller capacity memory card. (the card that came with my first digital only held 16 high quality photos) Although there are some of us who operate on the theory that if you take enough pictures SOME of them will turn out.

I saw a film scanner listed at $99 the other day. I have no idea if it was a good scanner. You might want to research film scanners and compare their price to the price of a quality scans at a photo shop. It might be a economical choice and gives you the added benefit of being able to control your own scans.