Help (gulp!)

[F.Gordon]

I've volunteered to "fix" an old family collage for some good friends. Have scanned this large collage in 16 30meg 300dpi files and now I'm scratching my head wondering "what the hell did I get myself into".

My computer doesn't have the memory to handle splicing that many large pix so..... should I do restoration on each file or should I reduce the size of the files.... splice everything together... then do the minor restoration? Or should I leave the country? Any tips, suggestions, or "you're a real moran F'" comments would be appreciated.

The ultimate "plan" is to produce something that could be printed in a large poster type thing so various family members could all have a copy.
:shrug:

[CC]

1. Can you work on each scan

by itself memory wise?

[F.Gordon]

2. Yes, no problem with 1

I could probably even handle 4-6.... but not 16.

[CC]

4. Try working on each one

individually then put them together at the end. And keep notes like alfredo said, very detailed notes. Also turn off anything running in the background that you don't need puter wise for more RAM.

or depending on what you use make actions with the first one and apply them to the rest in a batch process.
Though looking at it you might want to select individual pics to adjust??? Depends on what your friend wants in the end. (Hope it is a very good friend that realizes how much work you will be doing.)

[alfredo]

3. A suggestion: write down every step you take in restoring that first

section so you can have uniformity throughout.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

5. Yeah, you are a real moran, F!

That said, copy the scans to CD's, and take the thing to a graphics shop and let them print it.

[F.Gordon]

6. Yes, I am

Graphics shop is expensive. I have one that I've used in the past for art crap..... but they are pricey as hell. Trying to do this on the cheap.
:crazy:

[F.Gordon]

7. Thanks CC and alfredo

You can see that some photos are gone. I've thought about cutting some photos and rearranging everything. The "keep notes" thing is an excellent idea.
:thumbsup:

And YES.. these are very good friends. I don't mind doing it... just don't want to spend the next six months working on it. I think anything I come up with will be appreciated.

The negatives are gone and like a lot of people they've done a crappy job of keeping these photos "safe". I got "volunteered" into this when Ms F showed them some hack-restoration jobs I did. Ms F...."yea, F' can do it". :eyes: I'm going to try reducing the file sizes and splicing the whole thing.... see how much my computer can handle.

[CC]

8. Are you on a pc or

a mac?

[F.Gordon]

9. pc

..

I "think" I can handle a 200 meg file. It'll be "slow".... but my problem is that I'll have to do work all at once cause each time I save and load I'll lose a little more quality... but this aint fine art we're talkin' about here.

I'm going to try using a low res memory program. Have a copy of PSP7 I can blow the dust off and use that will free up more memory for me.

What's a mac? Isn't that a burger or sumtin?
:rofl:

[CC]

10. Well the reason I ask was

can you work on them as png files? That is much smaller file size but supposedly doesn't lose as much quality as jpgs. Won't swear by it though. But then you never work on the original file, always on a duplicate, right?

A mac is something I cuss at daily at work. The boss has even told me to stop saying I hate macs. :rofl: When a top of the line G5 can't handle a 150 mb file with out giving you the wheel of death it deserves cussed at. When there are 50 or so of them that decide to death wheel on a regular basis they deserve cussed at. Beside they don't have right click. And I have actually learned to tolerate them.

[F.Gordon]

11. P....p....png?

Excellent idea!!! Should be smaller file size than tiff. That is.... "should". I'll try it. Found this little tidbit on the internets.

What about TIFF?
The TIFF image format has been around for a long time, and will likely be around for quite a while more. The TIFF format was the cross-platform image format by choice until PNG was introduced, and according to some still is. TIFF's are a developer's nightmare. Last I counted there was over 50 different styles of TIFF images. You never know if an application will be able to read a TIFF image or not. One of the more popular TIFF's is the 24-bit LZW compressed version. This has the same patent restrictions as the GIF format does, but until PNG, was the only standard lossless compressed format. The standard 24 Bit PNG functionally is very similar in function to a LZW compressed TIFF. The TIFF format is able to store multiple images in one file. This is commonly used for FAX images. PNG's do not have this capability. The TIFF format remains to be popular, but there are few reasons to use it for photograph archival with the added benefits of PNG.

What about JPEG?
Unlike PNG, JPEG uses a lossy compression routine. Lossy compression means that the image loses quality and information each time it is saved. Because JPEG uses lossy compression, the filesize is almost always smaller then a PNG, especially for photographic images. Care must be taken when working with JPEG images as each time a JPEG is re-saved, more and more compression artifacts are introduced. Since PNG uses lossless compression it's an ideal format ideal for archival purposes, and for editing before saving a final version as a JPEG. JPEG is the most common image format used on the web, and will continue to be. Most photographic images should be saved as JPEG as opposed to PNG for viewing on the web as the filesize will be much smaller.

[CC]

13. png is much smaller than a psd or a tiff.

I know from Cafepress and upload time there.
Well it is late here, Ter is home and brought steamed shrimp so off to a very late dinner. Wishing you luck and smooth going. Keep us up to date on how it is going. BTW Mrs.F owes you at least a very very good dinner or night out of your choice for this. :hug:

[Ms. Toad]

19. That's how my daughter saves all her work

Don't know how she stumbled onto it - but she is much happier with it than with jpegs.

I save all mine as .psp and only convert to .jpg or .png when I'm ready to transfer it to something that doesn't recognize .psp

[ConsAreLiars]

15. In editing programs all compressed files are uncompressed

(decompressed?) and take up the same amount of space. The space they need is defined by the size in pixels and the number of bits used to represent each point on the grid (24 bits usually, or 48 bits in some cases). PNG is an excellent format for a number of reasons, but whether the original file is saved as a lossy compressed 20KB JPEG or an uncompresssed 1.2MB TIFF or a lossless compressed 200KB PNG, it will take the same space once loaded.

[F.Gordon]

16. Sooo.....

I've noticed that. I'm not on my computer right now. Will check it out later tonight. Is what you're saying.... regardless of the file type once it is loaded in the editor it consumes the same about of edit space if it has the same amount of pixie dust?

Been taking a break from photography to learn more about "imaging". Going through a huge learning curve lately. Re-learning Film. Readin' lots.

So much to learn. So little time.....

Thanks for the info and the editor link down yonder. Really appreciate it.

[ConsAreLiars]

18. Yup

Image editors do their work on a grid of numbers. A given numbers of pixels in the horizontal and vertical dimensions, with each point having a numerical value that represents its color. Whether that grid gets filled in with numbers that are as exact as the original data contained or approximations provided by a jpeg (lossy-compressed) saved file doesn't matter in terms of the size of the data, only the accuracy.

[bvar22]

12. WOW. A daunting task.

If I had the time, I would be tempted to cut each individual photo from the collage, and optimize them one at a time.

I would need to find a Hi-Power system to reassemble the individual pics using the original as a template (a friend at the U?, or a crazy gamer friend that has a Hi-End game system that I could load my software on who would do it for a bag of Fritos and a 6pack of Mountain Dew).

If you had the time to do each individual picture, you could either stretch the placement to cover bare spots in the reassembly, or add something you might be able to find in the archives.

Tough job.
You are a good friend.
BTW: I need help moving this weekend.




(not really):+

[F.Gordon]

17. LOL

There is probably some 14 year kid somewhere that could whip this sucker out in one night and 6 cans of Red Bull.

I enjoy doing stuff for friends.... but I don't "do" moves. :rofl:

Tommorrow I'm doing a free shoot for some friends that I hope to have pub'd in a magazine. My goal isn't to make money as much as it is.... "to get in". I want to do enough snaps so I can get into places that others can't. I'm tired of trepassing. I've been in jail once in my life and it sucks.

I still might do a cut of each photo. I'll spend some time this weekend. Play around......

[ConsAreLiars]

14. You might try the free demo of PWP, since is is less of a memory hog

than many all-purpose graphics packages. http://www.dl-c.com/

Each image takes twice its (uncompressed) size in memory, one for the raw data and another for the working model for any transformations that are attempted. So all at once would need a gigabyte plus more for the OS and whatever programs are running.

But if you go to the menu item Transformations/Layout, you have an otion to create a canvas of whatever final dimensions and resolution you want. Decide that question based on your intended use - 200 dpi for a mural or large photo, 300 dpi for something that will be viewed closeup. Any open image can be added, but you can then close that one and open another, and then add it in. No need to have them all open at the outset. If your computer can't handle all of this (the space for the final layout plus the single image data) you can scale down the size/resolution of the final product as needed.

Once you have a final layout and saved the image produced, you can then work on it as needed.

(Oh, and leave the empty spaces where photos have been lost. Life is like that.)

[Ms. Toad]

20. From the jagged edges

"lost" photos look more like kicked out of the family :)

[F.Gordon]

21. That's how I looked at it as well

I understand what ConsAreLiars is saying....but.....the ripped/missing/torn sections bother me.

I managed to assemble the whole thing in a high res 450meg canvas but my computer was really groaning. I've decided to cut each photo and work on them individually. They are all very bad and some are so bad I can't even tell what the original is suppose to be.

It'll be good practice for me but I've extended my estimated completion date to December 2006.:) Then I'll do a lo-res canvas and reassemble everything new like so it can be printed on a poster with no missing photos. Since we won't be "skipping christmas" next year I'll have at least ONE gift we can give.