Digital BW, The Print

Peter,

I agree that putting ones photographs on a web site is
not real far from placing them in the public domain. 

I also agree that while there is little that can be
done to a 72dpi jpg that will allow it to be printed
with anything near reasonable quality (at least by the
fine standards set by the members of this group),
upsizeing tools are an important part of the workflow
of any serious digital printer interested in big
prints (unless you own a Phase One P45).

My comment was made because I enjoyed the irony of
concurrent threads of Steve worrying about protecting
the images on his website and the upsizing example of
a very web sized image. If folks felt uncomfortable,
oh well...

I hope to see one of my images on a t-shirt too.

Guy
--- Peter Marshall <petermarshall@...> wrote:

> I think if you try it you will see both the
> possibilities and the 
> problems, and it well illustrates why I've never
> believed that this is a 
> serious problem. If you really want to rip images
> off, you will 
> generally get much better results from print than
> from the web.
> 
> Of course anyone is welcome to print any of the
> several thousand images 
> I have on various web sites to pin up on their walls
> etc. The quality 
> they will get - even with the best software - will
> not be any kind of 
> competition to the prints that I'm making from the
> 20-50Mb or so files I 
> typically print from. I actually feel gratified that
> some people find 
> the pictures interesting enough that they want to
> possess them even in 
> such a limited way. Even better was coming across
> one on a T-Shirt!
> 
> Regards
> 
> Peter Marshall
> petermarshall@...     
>
_________________________________________________________________
> My London Diary	             
> http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
> London's Industrial Heritage:
> http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
> The Buildings of London etc: 
> http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
> and elsewhere......
> 
> 
> 
> guy washburn wrote:
> 
> >Sounds like just the product needed to print jpegs
> >ripped off web sites. Or am I mixing topics...
> >
> >Guy
> >
> >--- Elwood Spedden <elwood@...> wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Clayton
> >>
> >>Will do. I did my second experiment using a 100Kb
> >>jpeg
> >>file of my grandson which my daughter recently
> sent
> >>me. I used the same two methods as before and got
> >>much
> >>the same results. I upsized to 12X16 (yes it is an
> >>extreme upsizing but I wanted to stress the
> >>software)
> >>and printed at 8X10. Although this was a bit
> extreme
> >>it showed me that a 5X7 would be perfectly usable
> >>and
> >>from this small file that is an accomplishment.
> >>
> >>What was different was that Photozoom now showed
> >>some
> >>artifacts that Bicubic smoother did not.
> >>
> >>I will keep experimenting to determine the best
> >>workflow and results but Photozoom at $125 does
> not
> >>offer anything I could use to justify it. I will
> now
> >>move on to your suggestions re: bicubic and the
> >>Flesher workflow to be sure I find a consisent
> >>methodology.
> >>
> >>As always, thanks for the time you take to make us
> >>all
> >>better imagemakers.
> >>
> >>Sincerely
> >>Woody Spedden
> >>
> >>--- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>---------------------------------
> >>Hello Woody,
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>I just did an initial experiement comparing PS
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Bicubic
> >>    
> >>
> >>>and Photozoom...I did all the process work in PS
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>and
> >>when
> >>    
> >>
> >>>finished upsized one copy of the image with PS CX
> >>>Bicubic Smoother and the other copy with
> Photozoom.
> >>>My results show a slight improvement with
> Photozoom
> >>>over PS CS...
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>If you are doing the upsize in a single step I
> hope
> >>you will also try
> >>it with CS/bicubic.  In my report I found that for
> a
> >>single step
> >>upsize I got better results with Bicubic compared
> to
> >>Bicubic Smoother.
> >> The use of Bicubic Smoother was prominent in the
> >>double-step Flesher
> >>technique.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Clayton
> >>
> >>
> >>Info on black and white digital printing at    
> >>http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>but not improvement that I would either
> >>    
> >>
> >>>pay $125 to get or the five minutes I had to
> wait.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>I
> >>    
> >>
> >>>think I will repeat the test going from the S40
> to
> >>>something really large like 30X40 to see if the
> >>>differences are more marked.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>My conclusion for now is that Photoshop has
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>provided
> >>    
> >>
> >>>us with a very high end upsizing tool and that is
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>what
> >>    
> >>
> >>>I will continue to use until I find a better
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>reason
> >>to
> >>    
> >>
> >>>buy Photozoom
> >>>
> >>>Woody Spedden
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>>>Here's what I'm doing and what I've tried so
> far.
> >>>>
> >>>>The Challenge: upsize some 1.2 mp JPGs that were
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>shot
> >>    
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com