It's more blurred when compared at the 33% greater size. If you compare them at the same size, as I did above, mine
is sharper. The purpose of submitting them at a slight larger size, was because *before* (on a different scan), I had
another that was sharper (at same size view) Mine was 300 dpi of an 8.2x11.5 print compared to the older db-version that
was 600dpi of a 4.8x7.2" print. The original prints both appeared to have been printed at 300dpi. So scanning at
>300dpi resulted in increased pixelization that was present in the 'in-db' version.
My preference was for quality at 300dpi, vs. an overscan at 400 or 600, but since that one got deleted, I thought it was
board policy to only look at dimensions. So on this one I used a 400 dpi scan of the print giving about 20% greater
dimensions, and tried to slightly smooth out the resulting pixelization in PS -- resulting in (doing side by side
comparisons) an image that was less blurred, less pixelated, and not color-damaged as the one in the db is. But it still
got deleted.
So how do I communicate the quality level when of a scan compared to a damaged-db copy when they are not easily
evaluated under equals conditions that are **suitable** for use in a wall (presuming that is the reason for the
'scan' DB).
I don't like submitting pixelated scans have have given up on submitting some pictures if I couldn't exceed
the dimensions of the one present w/o pixelization. However, on some the color damage was so bad I downloaded the db
copy to see if it was just a matter of a bad color profile or what. (Color profile mismatches can make picture colors
look way off, but I'll leave that at that, as that's a whole book by itself!)
What I found was it's resolution wasn't as high as its numbers indicated -- but that it was been scanned in at
2X the source-image's resolution @ 600 dpi. But worse, it hadn't been scanned in from an image the same size
as my print, but at one only 60% the size of mine.
So many of the in-db pics I was looking at in this section were not really larger except in dimensions -- they were all
lower resolution than I could provide. Its just that the original scanner thought that bigger was better (or maybe they
were trying to beat someone who'd scanned in at 300dpi earlier from the smaller 4.8x7.2 prints), I don't know.
But my source was 66% larger (1/.6), and I really though they looked better at 300 dpi (which appears to be the
source's dpi in both cases).
At that size, you get minimal pixelization, a slightly smaller scan size ~36-39 hundred pixels high, vs. 40-44 hunded
pixels high for the in-db version, but a sharper picture (if you view the other at "80%" (83% to be more
accurate - its the inverse of "200% Overscan x 60% image-size => _1.2x_ image) and my 300 dpi version side by
side, you should see about the same size image. Then you'd be comparing apples to apples and could compare the
actual differences in blurriness, pixelation (and color, though its size independent, mostly).
To compare the 400 dpi version I submitted (on this scan), you'd have to resize mine to 90% to see them at about
the same size. Though it would be better to resize both to a 300 dpi equivalent .. i.e. view mine at 66% and theirs at
80-83%. Then you'd see the closest to what the original scan would have looked like --
Neither, IMO, are as good as the str8-up 300dpi scan, but this would require everyone realizing that bigger dimensions
don't mean better quality -- and usually mean WORSE quality if the scan was done at a higher resolution than the
source.
All the above assumes you are going to look at these at 100% views under PS. When you start doing that, you need to make
sure all the factors are equal -- including viewing the original and look at the 'dpi' versions attached to
them (they are displayed in PS, so there's no excuse not to look at them).
If you just view them side by side in two FF windows, you can just set the zooms on each until they are at the same
size, or do similar in whatever other viewer one users. (MS-photo viewer, etc...).
So how do I submit a high quality scan when the definitions that different admins use do not seem to be aligned, and
certainly aren't taking into account issues of color balance, source(print) dpi & size and size-size viewing of
the images.
So far I've seen evidence of judging based on 1) dimension size (not good), and 2) judging based on 100% view of a
scan (also not good). "1" would be correct to use if both scanners scanned off the same size image,
"2" would be correct to use if both scanned at the same dpi of *source* image (which is even less likely, but
possible, ie. you could have one scan @ 300dpi of a 4", and another at 400dpi of a 3", they sizes would appear
the same and judging based on '2' would show the 300dpi of the 4" to be better".
But if source images and the scanned dpi are not the same, you need to adjust the viewed (compared) images to be the
same visual size and compare. So 400dpi of 10", and 600dpi of 6" (4000px vs. 3600px). So lets say the wp
writer wanted to use a source size of 3600 px tall, you''d reduce the larger image down to 3600, resulting in
a sharper image. If *either* is more pixelated, it doesn't matter what type of post-processing (in my _limited
experience_) one applies, the pixels appear as their own 'texture' in eventual scan size you use (or you blur
details so much that the scan becomes of limited usefulness).
Am I making any sense to anyone, or do I appear to be talking gibberish, or am I overly concerned about quality details
that most people don't care about or aren't aware of don't want to be concerned with?
Is my reality 'real' enough to be accepted, or would it take massive infusions of kool-aid to get others to
notice my reality 'details'...:-)
I hope this gets seen by enough admins for their to be useful discussion -- I'm always afraid that the subject
(rightfully) will indicated to them interest or disinterest).
-----
Which, BTW, was why I reposted my original request for image review under a more clear subject -- not necessarily due to
impatience, but because I wondered if my subject was too unrelated to the question, AND the conversation had
sufficiently strayed off the question about my the exact reasons for this particular image's deletion. I admit to
having impatience, due primarily to not having much a life beyond my computer in the winter (darn cold! no gardening nor
outdoor work!...Brrrr.). But I didn't post a more clear question based on my impatience, just my not being sure
about not having buried my question...just...just like the turn of this question has gone on into something that I
really thought deserved a posting under the genera board admin section and not as a response to a deletion
appeal-explanation.
(Should I just move most of this specific stuff to another thread since I've strayed so far off (in bringing up
comparison methodology) this thread's initial intent or even stated subject? :-)
Darn meandering writing style...
Real conversations don't lend themselves to nice neat tidy divisions and labels...C'est la vie.
A*s
