Any Photoshop wizards here?

[manudenis2005]

I have 19 digital photos with Van Damme from Double Impact and I want to print them.Unfortunately the digital photos are not as clear as I want them to be.Can someone help me?
Thanks for the help.Here there are 2 of them.
http://www.box.net/shared/4lzga8capp
http://www.box.net/shared/yuq9jb5jcm
Click on download.

I've asked for this on 3 forums already.Of course nobody helped me so far.

Hope to get some help from here.

[Jox]

What do you mean by 'clear'? I'm no PS wizard...

[manudenis2005]

I'll send you an email with a sample of a "clear" photo.

[Dolph_Fan]

Post links to :

All the photo files.
A scan or photo of your current unclear output (large and clear). (If you have tried printing them)
In descriptive words; what aspect(s) if the photo you see as not being clear
Example(s) of your definition of clear photos

For each photo; try to send the most original, 1st generation file that you can obtain (meaning; not a re-saved version).

Also if the original source of these photos was not a file format, but physical, e.g. paper or film, and you also have the original paper or film, then state so. (The digitisation process is a deciding factor on the results that can be obtained, and in that case re-digitising in a specific way would produce better results). Maybe useful to know if you can get the photos re-digitised.

Also provide the following information :

Desired print output dimensions (Inches/Centimeters) - Approximate
Type of output hardware, e.g. Laser printer, Inkjet / Bubblejet printer, Dye Sublimation printer, Wax Transfer printer, etc. [Model name & numbers if possible]
Type of output paper, e.g. Plain Copier Paper, Glossy Photo paper, etc.
Output colour; Colour or Black & White
Print output software.

I analysed the two sample photos you have initially provided links to, and found; Although the photos are approximately 4000+ by 2700+ pixels in dimension, the actual effective resolution is approximately 800 by 500 pixels. 800 by 500 pixels is also close to the resolution of a DVD still 720 x 576 (PAL), 720×480 (NTSC). The reason why they are so large is probably one of two reasons, either:

The source was small, but was digitised at a high resolution 3200 DPI (Dots Per Inch)
After digitising, the image was enlarged before saving to file

I think the first reason is probably more correct in this case, because if you take 35mm film and digitize it at 3200 DPI, you will have an image of the approximate dimensions of this file (4000+ by 2700+); 1 inch = 25.6 mm, (35mm / 25.6) * 3200 = 4375 (approximetely the size of the largest dimension of the photo(s). But for a digitized version of a 35mm film source the colour quality is very poor. Either digitization was not preformed optimally, or the digitization equipment was of poor capabilities, or the 35mm film was of poor quality.

So from the effective resolution of these images, the optimum print output size, for output at a particular DPI, would be approximately 3.4 cm x 2.2 cm (printing at 600 DPI) to 6.7 cm x 4.4 cm (printing at 300 DPI). Anything beyond that size results in lower quality print output, which is proportional to the extent of enlargement beyond the optimum output size, due to the image being resized to a larger than optimum size. (If you print at a higher DPI you get more detail in smaller space, but as a result the image is smaller, as opposed to a lower DPI where you get lesser detail in the same but the image is larger). This DPI can be called the intended DPI (next paragraph explains why its labeled intended).

But the optimum print output size, is only for printers that can print dots with a unique colour dot (pixel), as opposed to other printers that combine a small square section of dots to visually re-produce a colour dot (pixel), for example a 4 x 4 dot square (e.g. Inkjet / Bubblet). So for the output printer, for example InkJet / Bubblejet, if you find out the size of printer's dot pattern for each screen pixel (e.g. 4 x 4 grid size), and then multiply the output size at the intended DPI (mentioned in the previous paragraph) by the grid size to get the actual maximum optimal output that can be produced at a particular intended DPI. For example:

Inkjet / Bubblejet - Dot Grid Size of 4 x 4 = Size at Intended DPI * 4 (only use one dimension)
e.g. 3.4 cm x 2.2 cm (printing at 600 intended DPI) = (3.4 cm x 4) x (2.2 cm x 4) = 13.6 cm x 8.8 cm

[manudenis2005]

Post links to :

All the photo files.
A scan or photo of your current unclear output (large and clear). (If you have tried printing them)
In descriptive words; what aspect(s) if the photo you see as not being clear
Example(s) of your definition of clear photos

For each photo; try to send the most original, 1st generation file that you can obtain (meaning; not a re-saved version).

Also if the original source of these photos was not a file format, but physical, e.g. paper or film, and you also have the original paper or film, then state so. (The digitisation process is a deciding factor on the results that can be obtained, and in that case re-digitising in a specific way would produce better results). Maybe useful to know if you can get the photos re-digitised.

Also provide the following information :

Desired print output dimensions (Inches/Centimeters) - Approximate
Type of output hardware, e.g. Laser printer, Inkjet / Bubblejet printer, Dye Sublimation printer, Wax Transfer printer, etc. [Model name & numbers if possible]
Type of output paper, e.g. Plain Copier Paper, Glossy Photo paper, etc.
Output colour; Colour or Black & White
Print output software.

I analysed the two sample photos you have initially provided links to, and found; Although the photos are approximately 4000+ by 2700+ pixels in dimension, the actual effective resolution is approximately 800 by 500 pixels. 800 by 500 pixels is also close to the resolution of a DVD still 720 x 576 (PAL), 720×480 (NTSC). The reason why they are so large is probably one of two reasons, either:

The source was small, but was digitised at a high resolution 3200 DPI (Dots Per Inch)
After digitising, the image was enlarged before saving to file

I think the first reason is probably more correct in this case, because if you take 35mm film and digitize it at 3200 DPI, you will have an image of the approximate dimensions of this file (4000+ by 2700+); 1 inch = 25.6 mm, (35mm / 25.6) * 3200 = 4375 (approximetely the size of the largest dimension of the photo(s). But for a digitized version of a 35mm film source the colour quality is very poor. Either digitization was not preformed optimally, or the digitization equipment was of poor capabilities, or the 35mm film was of poor quality.

So from the effective resolution of these images, the optimum print output size, for output at a particular DPI, would be approximately 3.4 cm x 2.2 cm (printing at 600 DPI) to 6.7 cm x 4.4 cm (printing at 300 DPI). Anything beyond that size results in lower quality print output, which is proportional to the extent of enlargement beyond the optimum output size, due to the image being resized to a larger than optimum size. (If you print at a higher DPI you get more detail in smaller space, but as a result the image is smaller, as opposed to a lower DPI where you get lesser detail in the same but the image is larger). This DPI can be called the intended DPI (next paragraph explains why its labeled intended).

But the optimum print output size, is only for printers that can print dots with a unique colour dot (pixel), as opposed to other printers that combine a small square section of dots to visually re-produce a colour dot (pixel), for example a 4 x 4 dot square (e.g. Inkjet / Bubblet). So for the output printer, for example InkJet / Bubblejet, if you find out the size of printer's dot pattern for each screen pixel (e.g. 4 x 4 grid size), and then multiply the output size at the intended DPI (mentioned in the previous paragraph) by the grid size to get the actual maximum optimal output that can be produced at a particular intended DPI. For example:

Inkjet / Bubblejet - Dot Grid Size of 4 x 4 = Size at Intended DPI * 4 (only use one dimension)
e.g. 3.4 cm x 2.2 cm (printing at 600 intended DPI) = (3.4 cm x 4) x (2.2 cm x 4) = 13.6 cm x 8.8 cm

You really lost me man.That's why I've asked for help.I need somebody to modify them for me.Jox told me that what I need is a better definition.
So can you help me or not?

[Dolph_Fan]

Post links to :

All the photo files.
A scan or photo of your current unclear output (large and clear). (If you have tried printing them)
In descriptive words; what aspect(s) if the photo you see as not being clear
Example(s) of your definition of clear photos

For each photo; try to send the most original, 1st generation file that you can obtain (meaning; not a re-saved version).

Also if the original source of these photos was not a file format, but physical, e.g. paper or film, and you also have the original paper or film, then state so. (The digitisation process is a deciding factor on the results that can be obtained, and in that case re-digitising in a specific way would produce better results). Maybe useful to know if you can get the photos re-digitised.

Also provide the following information :

Desired print output dimensions (Inches/Centimeters) - Approximate
Type of output hardware, e.g. Laser printer, Inkjet / Bubblejet printer, Dye Sublimation printer, Wax Transfer printer, etc. [Model name & numbers if possible]
Type of output paper, e.g. Plain Copier Paper, Glossy Photo paper, etc.
Output colour; Colour or Black & White
Print output software.

I analysed the two sample photos you have initially provided links to, and found; Although the photos are approximately 4000+ by 2700+ pixels in dimension, the actual effective resolution is approximately 800 by 500 pixels. 800 by 500 pixels is also close to the resolution of a DVD still 720 x 576 (PAL), 720×480 (NTSC). The reason why they are so large is probably one of two reasons, either:

The source was small, but was digitised at a high resolution 3200 DPI (Dots Per Inch)
After digitising, the image was enlarged before saving to file

I think the first reason is probably more correct in this case, because if you take 35mm film and digitize it at 3200 DPI, you will have an image of the approximate dimensions of this file (4000+ by 2700+); 1 inch = 25.6 mm, (35mm / 25.6) * 3200 = 4375 (approximetely the size of the largest dimension of the photo(s). But for a digitized version of a 35mm film source the colour quality is very poor. Either digitization was not preformed optimally, or the digitization equipment was of poor capabilities, or the 35mm film was of poor quality.

So from the effective resolution of these images, the optimum print output size, for output at a particular DPI, would be approximately 3.4 cm x 2.2 cm (printing at 600 DPI) to 6.7 cm x 4.4 cm (printing at 300 DPI). Anything beyond that size results in lower quality print output, which is proportional to the extent of enlargement beyond the optimum output size, due to the image being resized to a larger than optimum size. (If you print at a higher DPI you get more detail in smaller space, but as a result the image is smaller, as opposed to a lower DPI where you get lesser detail in the same but the image is larger). This DPI can be called the intended DPI (next paragraph explains why its labeled intended).

But the optimum print output size, is only for printers that can print dots with a unique colour dot (pixel), as opposed to other printers that combine a small square section of dots to visually re-produce a colour dot (pixel), for example a 4 x 4 dot square (e.g. Inkjet / Bubblet). So for the output printer, for example InkJet / Bubblejet, if you find out the size of printer's dot pattern for each screen pixel (e.g. 4 x 4 grid size), and then multiply the output size at the intended DPI (mentioned in the previous paragraph) by the grid size to get the actual maximum optimal output that can be produced at a particular intended DPI. For example:

Inkjet / Bubblejet - Dot Grid Size of 4 x 4 = Size at Intended DPI * 4 (only use one dimension)
e.g. 3.4 cm x 2.2 cm (printing at 600 intended DPI) = (3.4 cm x 4) x (2.2 cm x 4) = 13.6 cm x 8.8 cm

You really lost me man.That's why I've asked for help.I need somebody to modify them for me.Jox told me that what I need is a better definition.
So can you help me or not?

You need to answer the question asked about:

The source of the photos
The output

and also provide the photos examples asked for. Provide all information that was asked about in by previous/first message (or as much as possible).

The help I provide will be decided of the information you provide.

[manudenis2005]

Ok the details.
I want the photos to look like this one:
Click on the thumbnail to enlarge.
I can't upload at work a bigger file,but I think you'll understand what I want by viewing this one.
If this isn't ok I'll upload the bigger file when I get home.
The photos are scans from 35 mm slides like you said.I will print them in a photolab on glossy paper.Size of the photos will be 6*8.5 inches.

[manudenis2005]

Thanks man for the help.I will reward you with rare Dolph scans from my 8*10 photo collection.

[Dolph_Fan]

Ok the details.
I want the photos to look like this one:
Click on the thumbnail to enlarge.
I can't upload at work a bigger file,but I think you'll understand what I want by viewing this one.
If this isn't ok I'll upload the bigger file when I get home.
The photos are scans from 35 mm slides like you said.I will print them in a photolab on glossy paper.Size of the photos will be 6*8.5 inches.

Again, can you answer;

In descriptive words; what aspect(s) of the photo(s) you see as making the photo unclear ?

The fault with these photos is due to the digitization process. The fault being either a bad method of digitisation (notably equipment's settings/configuration) or bad quality 35mm source. But from the photos, the 35mm source would have had to be very poor to produce these results. The quality (covering all aspects) of the photos for a digitisation from an average 35mm source is like 25% of what normally is obtained from 35mm film with the averagest of the poorest digitisation equipment.

If you have the 35mm film, can you take a look at it in close detail by holding it up against the light, and observe its photo quality, especially compare it to the quality of other known good quality 35mm film, if you have any. You will have to take a few minutes looking at 35mm film and to realise the quality, quick glance is not enough. If you can, can you answer:

Does the quality problem lie in the 35mm film itself ?

From the photos you have shown, only a mild correction can be done because there is not enough quality in the photos. If you had average quality scans from 35mm film, then the quality would be much better. So the big deciding question is

Can you get the 35mm film re-digitized (in a better way this time) ?

...if you can, then which equipment will be used, provide make & model names/numbers

If you can then obtaining better re-digitized version would make all the difference. Else if not, then make do with what you currently have (but results will not be ideal), and then therefore also provide:

For each photo; try to send the most original, 1st generation file that you can obtain (meaning; not a re-saved version)

All the photo files

[manudenis2005]

I only have these scans.I won't get better ones.

[manudenis2005]

And the guy who sold them to me upload them by himself on Box.net.
The links come from the uploaded files by him.

[Dolph_Fan]

And the guy who sold them to me upload them by himself on Box.net.
The links come from the uploaded files by him.

Can you provide

Links to All the photo files

[manudenis2005]

And the guy who sold them to me upload them by himself on Box.net.
The links come from the uploaded files by him.

Can you provide

Links to All the photo files

Send me a PM with your email.Thank you.I'll send you the links to all of them.Sorry but I don't want these scans to appear all over the internet that's why I need your email.

[Dolph_Fan]

Send me a PM with your email.Thank you.I'll send you the links to all of them.Sorry but I don't want these scans to appear all over the internet that's why I need your email.

A download link to the corrected versions of the photos has been sent to the e-mail address that the links to the original versions was sent from.

Example of the results, Before and After:

[manudenis2005]

Big thank you for the help.
I decided not to save the money an bought half of the slides.