A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Best format quality for copying slides & negatives



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 3rd 05, 11:41 AM
Perk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Best format quality for copying slides & negatives

Hi all, need some opinions,

My Oly C-700UZ offers three formats (actually four, but the little one
doesn't matter here), TIFF, SHQ (which I assume means Super High
Quality), and HQ.

Digitizing slides in TIFF gives a very large file in terms of disk space
and picture size, while SHQ & HQ are fairly close to one another in size.

Realizing that the file size can be adjusted, is there any practical
advantage to any one of them as far as the best resolution and final
picture quality ?

Thanks much,

Perk (:)
  #2  
Old November 3rd 05, 11:50 AM
Joseph Meehan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Best format quality for copying slides & negatives

Perk wrote:
Hi all, need some opinions,

My Oly C-700UZ offers three formats (actually four, but the little one
doesn't matter here), TIFF, SHQ (which I assume means Super High
Quality), and HQ.

Digitizing slides in TIFF gives a very large file in terms of disk
space and picture size, while SHQ & HQ are fairly close to one
another in size.
Realizing that the file size can be adjusted, is there any practical
advantage to any one of them as far as the best resolution and final
picture quality ?


There are differences and they relate to file size. The larger the file
the more information that is stored. I suggest that if you intend to edit
the files that you stick with TIFF at least until after you edit them.

If you are not planning on editing them, then I suggest that you
consider testing and seeing for yourself how they hold up for the use you
intend for them. If it is your intention to display them on a computer
screen do that if you want to make prints, do that. Now take a good look
and see if you see a difference, if not go with the smaller size as there is
no advantage to YOU. I might see it different, but they are not my prints.


Thanks much,

Perk (:)


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit


  #3  
Old November 3rd 05, 08:59 PM
Malcolm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Best format quality for copying slides & negatives

My Oly C-700UZ offers three formats (actually four, but the little one
doesn't matter here), TIFF, SHQ (which I assume means Super High
Quality), and HQ.

Digitizing slides in TIFF gives a very large file in terms of disk space
and picture size, while SHQ & HQ are fairly close to one another in size.

Realizing that the file size can be adjusted, is there any practical
advantage to any one of them as far as the best resolution and final
picture quality ?


This is the way I did it:
http://tinyurl.com/c2et8

The best quality jpg will be fine. There is very little difference between
this and a tiff.

However, before doing any editing, mark the jpg as read only. Then edit and
save as a different name. If you ever need to edit again, go back to the
original read only file and edit that.

Malcolm


  #4  
Old November 3rd 05, 10:52 PM
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Best format quality for copying slides & negatives

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 21:59:16 +0200, Malcolm wrote:

However, before doing any editing, mark the jpg as read only. Then edit
and save as a different name. If you ever need to edit again, go back to the
original read only file and edit that.


That'll work, and it's much safer than working with the original
files. When I do that with non-image files I always make sure that
I save a renamed copy *before* starting any edits. If an accident
happens before the name is changed (accidentally typing Control-S
or not realizing the program has a timed auto-save feature), there
goes the original file. But for photo images I find it safer to
never edit the original files. They're kept in a known, easily
found location, and only copies (usually on another drive) are
edited. This way if I ever need to go back to the original, I know
exactly what the name of the file is, since it's the same as the
edited copy. Even if for some reason it's desirable to change the
filename, it's probably a good idea to have the new filename contain
an embedded copy of the original filename.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Medium format to digital resolution question.... Snapshotsid Digital Photography 18 January 29th 05 11:12 PM
Kodak on Variable Film Development: NO! Michael Scarpitti In The Darkroom 276 August 12th 04 10:42 PM
negatives into slides processing Philippe Film & Labs 8 January 27th 04 05:46 PM
Maximizing quality with color negatives Robert Feinman Film & Labs 2 December 11th 03 09:21 PM
photos to print: slides or negatives? Carlo Film & Labs 1 October 9th 03 02:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.