Printed Photos Vs. Onscreen Photos
- Thread starter jokerswild
- Start date
Sorry to burst your bubble Jon.... but it was just the lighting.... he is still just a mortal man.
Steve: Tell me a little more about those tricks in PhotoShop. Were you using PhotoShop CS or just Elements?
What do you mean by passes?
What do you mean by passes?
well, usually when retouching a photo, you'd do multiple cycles of little adjustments... I just did one big sweeping one..
The only way to really see what any digital camera is capable of is to make prints.
Viewing them on a computer monitor will not show you how good the image really is, no matter how expensive a monitor you may happen to have.
And . . . the higher the megapixel . . . the worse they look on a computer monitor!
Also, LCD monitors will show more pixelation than a tube type (CRT) monitor.
As for RAW . . . problem with RAW files is that you HAVE to post process every single image in software before you can do anything with it.
You can't get them printed anywhere except maybe a few pro labs, and you can't even view them unless you have software that will read the RAW files from your particular camera.
Some people love RAW . . .
Me, I never shoot in RAW anymore as I have found that most of the time the JPEG's are every bit as good as the RAW files once I've spent hours in front of the computer correcting the RAW files.
Mainly in really bad lighting situations, and even then I shoot RAW+JPEG (that way I get both), and most of the time I toss the RAW images as I find I don't need them.
Take some of your images and get them printed if you really want to see how good your camera really is!
JPEG straight from the camera (absolutely no post processing):
Viewing them on a computer monitor will not show you how good the image really is, no matter how expensive a monitor you may happen to have.
And . . . the higher the megapixel . . . the worse they look on a computer monitor!
Also, LCD monitors will show more pixelation than a tube type (CRT) monitor.
As for RAW . . . problem with RAW files is that you HAVE to post process every single image in software before you can do anything with it.
You can't get them printed anywhere except maybe a few pro labs, and you can't even view them unless you have software that will read the RAW files from your particular camera.
Some people love RAW . . .
Me, I never shoot in RAW anymore as I have found that most of the time the JPEG's are every bit as good as the RAW files once I've spent hours in front of the computer correcting the RAW files.
Mainly in really bad lighting situations, and even then I shoot RAW+JPEG (that way I get both), and most of the time I toss the RAW images as I find I don't need them.
Take some of your images and get them printed if you really want to see how good your camera really is!
JPEG straight from the camera (absolutely no post processing):
Higher resolutions are ideal for printing - for web purposes, you do not require such high resolutions, so try scaling them down. The super/uber-high-res when compressed via file-size or even rescaled down by the browser itself can distort.
You simply don't need a super high resolution for web shots at all.
Conversely, I read a really cool academic paper online several months ago that showed that beyond a certain point (that has already been passed by many digital cameras on the market), higher resolutions actually start to DEGRADE image quality rather than improve it. It was pretty cool - I'll try digging it up.
So yeah - if your using it almost exclusively for web with little to no chance it will see print, lower that resolution baby!
You simply don't need a super high resolution for web shots at all.
Conversely, I read a really cool academic paper online several months ago that showed that beyond a certain point (that has already been passed by many digital cameras on the market), higher resolutions actually start to DEGRADE image quality rather than improve it. It was pretty cool - I'll try digging it up.
So yeah - if your using it almost exclusively for web with little to no chance it will see print, lower that resolution baby!
I don't know... every where I read it says to use the highest res your camera can produce.... so the question is with these higher resolutions what are you guys doing that makes them looks so good on the web... what's the secret to resizing and making them look good online as well as on paper?
What if the camera is only capable of 72dpi.... even at 10m....?
At least that's the indicated dpi whenever I import the jpeg's into photoshop elements...
I may for S&G import one into PhotoShop CS2 and see what I get.... overall I think the clarity of my pictures depends greatly on how steady I can hold the camera.... (which is a challage for me) and lighting... I need a tri-pod.
That sounds odd, that the camera is only capable of 72dpi.
I think it is a default setting in Elements, how are you opening/importing the files? Be specific.
I found the settings but they don't seem to affect jpegs just new psd files.... I've tried Open As psd but I only get an error...
What else can I do?
This is weird.... if I import files directly from the camera using the Photoshop Elements Import option under File vs importing using the Adobe PhotoShop downloader I get 300dpi instead of 72dpi..... that don't make much sense does it?
