Digital BW, The Print

Guy,

There is a fundamental difference between wanting to share images with 
people through the web and putting them in the public domain. However if 
you put images on the web, then you presumably want and expect people to 
view them - which entails copying them to their computers etc. So we are 
encouraging non-commercial use in this respect, and it seems to me 
contradictory not to encourage other non-commercial use. But in no way 
is this putting them in the public domain. Copyright is essentially 
about the right to publish rather than the right to make a personal copy 
of something, which at least in some countries, is covered by the idea 
of 'fair use'.

I share your perception of the irony, and I think I referred in an 
earlier post to the paranoia of some photographers. I used a web image 
to test SizeFixer precisely because of these kind of largely unfounded 
fears.

Incidentally web browsers take no account of the resolution setting in 
the file for displaying on screen (or for printing), and relatively few 
web images are 72dpi (and my screen is around 100dpi.) Most of my web 
images are 300dpi, and some are 4800dpi, which may lead to rather 
disappointingly small results when printed by some other software!

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:

>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 
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>  
>