Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / March 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Zooming and Cropping

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
geezer - 04 Mar 2005 19:44 GMT
I have a Toshiba 3.2 PDR 3300 camera.

I took a group shot of 6 people.
I uploaded the pic to PC via Picasa.
I input it to Photoshop - Its resolution was 72.
I changed its size to 8"W X 10"H.
I printed it and the result was just dandy.
I cropped out each of the people, resized each to 8"W X 10"H.
I printed them and all 6 were grainy.

What did I do wrong?

Thanks
MostlyH2O - 04 Mar 2005 21:12 GMT
You didn't do anything wrong.  There are a finite number of pixles in your
original image.  When you take a small area of the original image and blow
it up, you have only a small number of pixles to cover a large (8x10) area.
For example, your original image may have 2048 x 1536 pixels.  That's enough
to cover a print at 8"x10" at 300dpi (average inkjet resolution).  When you
crop a small area, you might cut the image down to, say, 250x250 pixels.
Now you are asking those 250 pixels to cover a much bigger area when you
blow it up.  When you use your software to increase the size, the software
will "guess" or interpolate the additional pixels needed to make the image
bigger.  This is an imperfect process because the software doesn't have
enough pixel information to produce a smooth high resolution image.

Some possible solutions:

- Take pictures of each face individually and have the portrait cover the
entire original image.
- Get a camera with more megapixels.  The more pixels you have, the more you
can blow it up - so you might get away with blowing up small areas of the
image. (not the best solution, obviously)

- If you need to get a better image from your existing image - because you
can't reshoot it - you *could* try to use your image software to process the
image more.  In Photoshop, I might use 'gaussian blur' and then maybe
'sharpen' tools to *try* to squeeze a better image from a few pixels.  But
it will never be perfect.

Think of it this way.  If you have 1000 bricks, you might be able to build a
very small house.  If you try to build a large house with 1000 bricks, there
will be huge gaps between the bricks.  You could trowl a bunch or mortar in
between the bricks to spread them out, but the walls would look lumpy and
irregular.  Your image processing software is trying to take a small house
(image) and stretch it into a big house.  But there are not enough bricks
there to make a bigger house, so the software makes up for it by using
mortar to fill the gaps.  These mortar-filled gaps will never look as smooth
as if you used enough bricks.

Did that make any sense?

Here's some more info...
http://www.vividlight.com/articles/3116.htm

best regards,
Jack

> I have a Toshiba 3.2 PDR 3300 camera.
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Thanks
geezer - 04 Mar 2005 21:21 GMT
>You didn't do anything wrong.  There are a finite number of pixles in your
>original image.  When you take a small area of the original image and blow
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>best regards,
>Jack

Thanks Jack

Let me throw this at you.

This camera has 3 'size' settings and 3 'quality' settings.
I tried all 9 combos.
When I uploaded all 9, Photoshop insisted that all of them were
resolution of 72.  Is that proper?
Also, I did not see any difference in the image qualities in the 9.
However, camera memory and PC file sizes were greatly affected.

Thanks
J. A. Mc. - 04 Mar 2005 23:39 GMT
>>You didn't do anything wrong.  There are a finite number of pixles in your
>>original image.  When you take a small area of the original image and blow
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
>Thanks

Photoshop resizes the image to 'fit' the working window for display only. It
does NOT alter the actual image.

Take and use the 'zoom' controls to set the images to 100% each and you'll
see the difference!

The CAMERA is insisting they are all 'sized' for 72dpi, not photoshop! Bad
Camera !!!
geezer - 05 Mar 2005 00:00 GMT
>Photoshop resizes the image to 'fit' the working window for display only. It
>does NOT alter the actual image.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>The CAMERA is insisting they are all 'sized' for 72dpi, not photoshop! Bad
>Camera !!!

Whose 'Zoom' controls?  Photoshop's?

Thanks for response.
J. A. Mc. - 05 Mar 2005 17:45 GMT
>>Photoshop resizes the image to 'fit' the working window for display only. It
>>does NOT alter the actual image.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>Thanks for response.

CTRL+ALT+(+/-)

You might find pressing F1 a great help.
MostlyH2O - 05 Mar 2005 01:35 GMT
> This camera has 3 'size' settings and 3 'quality' settings.
> I tried all 9 combos.
> When I uploaded all 9, Photoshop insisted that all of them were
> resolution of 72.  Is that proper?

Yea - mine does that too. 72 dpi is only relevant if you also look at the
image size. If you look at the sizes of your 9 images, the higher 'quality'
ones should be bigger (have more pixels - or inches - whatever incriment you
are using).  The "dpi" really refers to the method of output/viewing of your
image - not the resolution.

-- 72dpi (dots per inch) is the resolution of your computer monitor. So for
every square inch that you see on your computer monitor, you are seeing
72x72 pixels.  This will never change....

-- Imagine that you have a single image that is 72x72 pixels.  Since your
computer monitor can only display 72dpi, your image will be 1" x 1"...

-- Your inkjet printer can print at a much higher resolution than your
monitor displays - 300dpi.  So for every square inch you see on a printed
page, there can fit 300x300 pixels.  That's about 4 times as many pixels in
an inch compared to the monitor. Now, if you take the above 72x72 pixel
image and print it on your 300dpi inkjet printer, your image will only be
about 0.25"x0.25" (one quarter the size displayed on your monitor)- because
you need 300x300 pixels to fill an inch - but you only have 72x72.

-- So the "DPI" refers to your output.  What maters is the actual "X" and
"Y" size of the image.  Your 3 megapixel camera can make an image of up to
2048x1536 pixels (approximately).  Your inkjet printer prints 300x300 pixels
in a square inch, so your printed picture will be 6.82 inches by 5.12
inches.  You see? - you have to print 2048 pixels accross the page - and can
fit 300 pixels in an inch - so 300 pixels times 6.82 inches = 2048.

- But your computer monitor displays only 72 pixels in an inch - so to
display all 2048 pixels (at 1:1 zoom - or 100%), you would need a monitor
that was 28.4 inches wide!  That's why digital camera images always look
HUGE on your monitor - unless you are zoomed out.  Photoshop will "Zoom to
fit" the image when you first open it.  If you are looking at your entire
image in photoshop, (double click the magnifying glass to see the image at
it's true 100% or 1:1 size.  Of course, zooming in our out of the image in
photoshop does not affect the actual resolution of the image - just the way
you see it.

> Also, I did not see any difference in the image qualities in the 9.

That's probably because you are looking at them all way zoomed out - so you
can't see the detail.  Notice the status bar just above your image - it
probably says something like "1:3" or "1:4".  When you double click the
magnifying glass tool, you will be looking at it 1:1 - or 100% size.  If you
do this, you will see that some images are bigger (have more pixels) than
others.  The more pixels you have, the larger an image you can print or view
at 100% or 1:1.  Now you can always take an image with fewer pixels and
artificially blow up the size with your software or print settings, but then
you run into the problem we discussed at the begining of this thread.

> However, camera memory and PC file sizes were greatly affected.

Right.  more pixels takes more memory.  Let's imagine that your camera does
the following:

Low Quality Image = 640x480 pixels
Medium Quality = 600x800 pixels
High Quality = 2048x1536 pixels

If you compare the high quality and the low quality images (both at 100% or
1:1 - this is important) - you should see a considerable difference in the
detail.  If you are zoomed out on the images, you won't notice the
difference as much.  If you print both images on your inkjet (again, each at
100%) high quality will be bigger than the low quality.  If you take the low
quality image and artificially blow it up,  the quality of the image will
not be as good as if you used high quality image - because there's not as
much pixel information for a good image.

OK - going to cook dinner now ;-)
geezer - 05 Mar 2005 10:37 GMT
>Yea - mine does that too. 72 dpi is only relevant if you also look at the
>image size. If you look at the sizes of your 9 images, the higher 'quality'
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
>
>OK - going to cook dinner now ;-)

Wow

Thanks a meg.  I will read and re-read this until I fully grasp what
you say.  I appreciate your time.

Thanks again
chrlz@go.com - 06 Mar 2005 02:45 GMT
Sounds like a visit to www.scantips.com might be in order to get a good
grasp on resolution..
Sheldon - 25 Mar 2005 06:17 GMT
Bottom line is that you only have so many pixels to work with depending on
the camera.  So, depending on the number of pixels that are in the original
image, you can make a print up to a certain size that will look decent.  Any
larger and you begin to see the actual pixels, not good, and that's called
pixelization.  As the poster said clearly using the example of bricks and
mortar, you only have so much information to work with, and even Photoshop
can't fix everything.

Take a portion of the photo and blow it up to the size of the original photo
and you will begin to stretch the limit of how far you can go with the
number of pixels you have to begin with.  Let's say you blow up a 3
megapixel image to 8x10.  It won't look bad, but you are hitting the limit
of what a 3 megapixal image will print to and look "okay."  (Some will
disagree with this.)  Now, crop the image to 1/4 and blow that up to 8x10.
That's the equivalent of a 16x20 print from your original image, and trust
me, with a 3 megapixel image it won't look great.

This is the reason people get 6 and 8 megapixel cameras.  Not only to make
large prints, but to allow for cropping the image and still retaining some
detail.

Signature

Sheldon
sheldon@sopris.net

> >Yea - mine does that too. 72 dpi is only relevant if you also look at the
> >image size. If you look at the sizes of your 9 images, the higher 'quality'
[quoted text clipped - 72 lines]
>
> Thanks again
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.