Jump to content


CD Full

  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#21 Alfred


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5734 posts

Posted 27 July 2007 - 11:04 AM

This has nothing to do with deleting duplicates, but it could cut down on the number of large photos that you have to duplicate.

I have an old family photo of my great grandfather's family showing the parents and their nine children. I have no other photos of some of these so I used a copy of this photo and cropped a portrait of each from it for use in their multimedia scrapbook.
A photo editing program works better than RootsMagic for this, although you can use RootsMagic. You just have to make sure you are working with a COPY of the original for EACH individual picture you wish to extract.

I use the original family photo as a family photo.

Another thing to think of: since these photos are mostly viewed on a computer screen, there isn't much need for them to be high resolution, I used to think 800 by 600 pixels was large enough, now, with higher resolution monitors, something like twice that might be more appropriate. Using a compressed photo file like JPG can save on disk space too. There is a lot of talk about it not being a "lossy" format, but I cannot see it. Maybe after multiple editing steps it will start to show up.

#22 Cecilia



  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts

Posted 27 July 2007 - 02:00 PM

Hi Alfred, yes I crop photos too, but I still want to add the originals since they are often photos from special occasions. I scan my BEST family photos (certainly not all of them), in very high resolution. For a 19th century small portrait, that means 2400 dpi, and will give me a 50 MB file. I save it in TIF, but then I make a much smaller extra copy, in JPG, let's say about 1200-1500 pixels high. That still allows me to zoom in faces. My rule here is to "save the eyes - or at least faces" - the quality has to be good enough to see people's eyes or faces, when I zoom in. But this is just my opinion. I do like being able to see people's faces, and being able to see their eyes make them so much more alive. So that's why I have problems with a full CD... mellow.gif

How much quality you lose in a jpg file depends on how much compression you use. I use Paint Shop Pro a lot, and it has a "jpg optimizer" that shows a preview of my photo before I save it, and how it changes when I compress it. A bmp-file, original size 900 kb, is as a jpg file 185 kb with 5% compression, but only 45 kb with 35% compression. But unfortunately, with 35% compression, the quality is ruined forever. I think many scanners, perhaps all, have "options" when you save your photo to a jpg file, that allow you to decide how much compression you want. I think about 10% is normal, and does not remove too much quality.

I guess that if you use very low compression, you could work on & save a jpg file many times without noticing any loss in quality, but with a high compression, you can't save it even once.

Really high quality/resolution, is not really needed for the computer screen, but you do need it if you intend to remove scratches etc, or print the photo in a really good quality, especially if you want a bigger copy than the original. You lose some quality just in the printing process, therefore you need extra quality to get a good result. ... I always recommend scanning the very best photos in very high quality - you may not want to remove scratches, but some day your g-g-g-grandchildren may want to! Anyhow, these are my observations.. and at least in parts connected to this "full CD" topic. Thanks for you help Alfred! /Cecilia