Help with on line Photos

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

RGF1

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
418
Reaction score
58
Location
Avatar. The Maroon Bells . I live In NH and Near
I have a lot of very good phoots mostly from Colorado . that hen I look at when I get them back from the lab are stunning yet when I scan them on a flatbed scanned they lose something and do not look as good when I put them on Webshots . I know Ishould get them digatily scanned and put them on line that way. I plant to do that. But After looking at Darrens and others photos I want to tknow how do you put all that together and make the whole page or site look so good. I have a ablumb of 8x 10 and yet when i send them to freinds they say that the photos just do not look as good as the orginal I know part of it is using a flat bed scanned. . But I am not a pc wizard by any means . iwould like ot have my on line photos look as good as they do when I have them enlarged and framed.
thanks
 
Adobe's Photoshop?

I know that with Photoshop you can significantly enhance any image file - colors, brightness, contrast, it boggles my mind how much you can do with that program. There's probably other programs that perhaps are as capable, Photoshop is not cheap.
 
RGF1 said:
But After looking at Darrens and others photos I want to tknow how do you put all that together and make the whole page or site look so good.
urk, I'm not sure, computers keep getting more complicated. :( (and I used to consider myself a very capable computer geek!)

Most of the photo-hosting websites have some predefined styles, you upload your photos and it shows them in a (sometimes) nice format. (HikerBob told me he did all his web stuff by hand!) I have an account on pbase, it does pretty well, though it's a bit quirky to set up. J&J has an account on smugmug (search this site for smugmug, you'll see it) which I think I like the look&feel better. Both these two are paid websites, about $30/yr for lots of room. Others are free sites but can be clunky / annoying to browse, as they show ads (to pay for the free sites).
 
photo tricks

if you want the ultimate in quality, there are a few key things to pay attention to I think...

first, get your photos printed & scanned at a professional photo shop (like Hunts in Boston & Malden or send away to prodigitalphotos.com, which is the website i swear by), & not just at a local retail store (i.e. not Wal-Mart, Target, etc. etc.). This is significantly more expensive, but if quality is what you want, this is what you have to do. Also, it's a personal preference, but I think "matte" paper is much better for landscape pictures as opposed to "glossy" paper.

second, you MUST ask for a higher quality scan. A quick scan (with either a home scanner or a scanner used by a store/shop) will give you images that can't be enlarged without serious loss of quality. Ask for 150dpi or better (up to 300dpi) quality (I would never get my images scanned below 1 or 2 megabytes (1MB or 2MB) in size). For my favorite photographs, I often get a 30-50MB file scan (from slides), but I only use this if i'm trying to sell my photography at a show (as this can cost $2-$5 per picture to scan).

third, you need an awesome digital photo editor, like Adobe Photoshop (unfortunately, this one cost roughly $700 these days) or Adobe Imageready, which is a bit cheaper but doesn't have nearly as many cool features (still recommend it though...it's light years beyond standard photo editors). I use these programs for just about every single picture I take, as there are ALWAYS improvements (usually drastic ones) that can be made to photographs (cropping, color alteration, brush up on people, burning/dodging, etc.)

lastly, make sure that the file size is large when you are uploading to the internet. If you are using an online gallery sort of thing (like shutterfly or webshots), upload the files as jpeg quality, at least 1MB (but not more than 2MB) in size. A lot of people upload files that are 70kb and it shows. If you have your own website, make thumbnails that are 30-50kb in size and have those thumbnails link to pictures that are between 200kb-500kb in size. Photo editors will let you save pictures based on different levels of quality usually. Keep saving a file until you see it being saved as the size you want. You can also change the resolution to reduce the file size (ex. taking a 300dpi picture and changing it to 150dpi will change the file's overall size).
 
Yikes this is getting expensive. Thanks and more advice is welcome.
I think I can get Photshop from my folks who got it in a bundle when they bought a new pC they are not into high qualtiy at all all they do is download from thre digital camera and make albums . Though they have something that makes movies also mostly of my two sisters kids . I have aiDVD copy they made it was just as good as the original .

I do use very good lab for my flim porcesing and they can converet my slieds or prints to digital but it expensivce. I have more phots i want ot add but if i scan them they will e just ok.
I took some photos of te Maroon Bells and one is Stunning .
I do want to get some fall phots from both the Franconia ridge and the Bo onds . Can some one sugesst a light wieght tripod that can hold a Cannon EOS 1 IV
 
Check some of the photo websites:
www.stevesdigicams.com
www.dcresource.com

There are forums specifically on the subject of scanners. (e.g. http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/view_forum.php?id=45 )

I have a friend who shoots film, he has a film scanner to scan negatives. These are more expensive (consumer models seem to be in the $200-$1000 range) than the low grade flatbed scanners. I have no experience with them personally but it does make sense (why scan from the print when you can scan from the thing that made the print?), and sometimes they come w/ some basic software for image editing / digital dustspot removal / etc.

Note: for a 5MP scan, an 8"x10" photo requires only 250dpi (=sqrt(5000000/8/10)); most flatbed scanners have more resolution than that. "35mm" film seems to be (why isn't this easy to find on the 'net?) 24mmx36mm in extent; a 5MP scan of this would require 1930dpi (=sqrt(5000000/24/36)*25.4).
 
Here is a shot the orgional is 35mm kodachrome scanned by a flarbed with slide & neg capability. The contrast and color balance can be played with in Jasc paint shop pro which is less than 100 I don't recall the cost as I bought it a few years ago the scanner was less than a hundred.
 
Top