Alright, I'll bite.... Why?!?

I do, but it's buried around here somewhere. The short answer is to Add Noise Filter. I recommend Amount 3, Gaussian and Monochromatic. Adjust the Amount as needed. Others would suggest using 16-Bit instead of 8-Bit, and while that may be true, whatever you do with it will end up back at 8-Bit and band again. Use the Add Noise.

@@TheArtofRetouching thanks for the tip! are you talking about filter as in grain or gaussian blur in illustrator. please elaborate a bit. thanks again!

I was in Printing Prepress (eventually manager) for 15 years. No matter how much I know and put into my videos, professionals that know way more than I do always show up to correct me. Can't say I've ever heard of Amplitude Modulation, as It didn't come up in daily usage (though I likely knew of it, just not a naming convention), much less spots vs. dots. After clicking your link, it appears I've already watched your video (likely 4+ years back when I was researching this one). I love when people come out to correct me, as that just gives me more information to research. Always makes me wonder though, when enough is enough knowledge? My GrandParents moved 5 hours away from the rest of us. I remember once, after 2.5 hours, asking why this wasn't far enough; only to double the driving time. I don't remember my GrandFather's answer, but when it comes to these videos I often just say "yeah, that's far enough". Thank you for your comment though. I am actively rebuilding my website and it's videos, and will likely add your comments to a new add-on video.

@@TheArtofRetouching Hi John. Thank you for your gracious reply. I'm a bit of a "stickler" for terminology. Yesterday, I noticed that in one of the dialog boxes in their latest edition of Photoshop Elements 24, Adobe mistakenly refers to image resolution in dpi, rather than ppi. My wife had to call 911.🥴

Pixels are used to display an image on a digital device. In order to view the image on the back of the camera, the information needs to be converted into pixels, and then have a color profile assigned to it. As the camera itself does not need to view the image, it does not use pixels to create or store the raw information. Think about it like this: Let's say you want to make a curved line in Photoshop. So you take the Pen tool, click two points, and drag down on the mouse. This will give you a Vector Curve. Vectors are math based algorithms. All the computer cares about are the coordinates for the first point, coordinates for the second point, and the degrees of the arc. It wants to know the RGB breakdown of the color and the thickness of the line. The computer will take that information and create for you a Pixel based curved line. The computer does not care about the pixels, it just wants the math.

@@TheArtofRetouching i think you are very confused. Vector files (like SVG) are very different from image files (like PNG). Vector files (as you say) store coordinates. Image files store an array pixels. A digital camera converts light into an array of pixels and this is how it's stored.

@@lqueryvgOK fine, I'll complicate my answer. Raw files are unprocessed data from the camera's sensor. They are converted into pixels from demosaiching, which interprets the color information. I can make it even more complicated by including photosites and how different cameras have escalating bit-depth. But people like simple answers. Raw is malleable data, while pixels are more limited.

@@TheArtofRetouching Thanks, I've learnt some more about about raw image formats :-) It could be argued that raw image files store pixels for each colour value but that's down to semantics. For practical purposes, most people don't work with raw image files (e.g. when taking photos on their phone) because they'll never resample and it'll be better for them to save space instead. It looks like you are specifically speaking to digital camera enthusiasts so I'm happy to concede the point.

@@lqueryvgYes, I am refering to actual digital cameras. I've found on my phone (on my android at least) RAW Apps allow for greater manual flexibility, but ultimately fall very flat as the screen display rarely matches the file I find when I get back home. The true benefit of RAW files are the abilty to save over or under exposed images. The benefit of digital over phones is that phones compress the crap out of the pixels, and it often looks like mush by comparison.

I have an army of BenQ PD2705U monitors filling both my studios.

No technical issues with the file, you just won't be seeing as many possible colors on the display. You won't even notice unless you put two different monitors next to each other. Let's say you have a generic iMac with 8-Bit display and a 10-Bit BenQ monitor. Everything will look brighter, have higher contrast, and a more vibrant appearance on the BenQ. And if your talking the iMac's sRGB vs. the BenQ's AdobeRGB, you'll be all like "Damn, this apple display sucks. Sure am glad I dropped $700+ on a monitor."

As this is only an hour ago, this seems like a drunk post. While I can respect that venting, I have no idea what you are asking. I've re-read it several times. I have no idea what the question is.

In concept, yes. Definitely. As I prove around the 4 minute mark, 16 bit will save the detail that 8 bit can't. Once you start stacking Adjustment Layers, it can theoretically make a difference. But remember the whole point of the video. I challenge the actual need of 16 bit in the first place. I haven't used it in nearly a decade because I couldn't find any images in 3 professional photographer catalogs that actually needed it. It was just wasted space and processing power to push around all that extra information.

Well, it's "Width x Height = Total Pixels". So it doesn't matter if your camera or phone shot it, the pixel count is the pixel count. Now the actual QUALITY of those pixels is an entirely different discussion. Because as we all know, a phone of equal megapixels is still just going to smudge the crap out of the shot and be devoid of the same detail that a real camera will see.

Don't get pulled into the Scanner trap. My guess is that you were looking at the Epson v500 or similar. While I'm quite sure it's a very fine scanner, please ignore the specs. While technically true, they are still a lie. 48-Bit only means 16-Bit (Red, Yellow and Blue 16x3=48). 6400DPI would likely only be B/W line art, but even that has a real-world cap of like 2400DPI, if not 1200DPI depending on the Line Screen. It's a great idea to buy a v500 or v800, but only if you plan on scanning transparencies. Otherwise it's likely a waste of money. Desktop Scanner tech seems to have maxed out like 25 years ago.

I've been testing this lately. Topaz Sharpen AI does an amazing job at recovering lost images. However, for your very specific question of increasing DPI, the hands down winner is Topaz Gigapixel. Blow images up 6x the size to simply amazing results. I will run images through it just to get the better sharpening and face recognition. Turned a cropped 1990 1"x1" thumbnail into full sized 4x6 image. The whole lineup of software is extremely impressive.

DPI would be good up to the printing LPI. This means that as long as you send 300DPI at full size, then you can print up to 300LPI (almost unheard of). But if the front cover is 150LPI (Common) then you can send 150DPI (or PPI) as long as your image is printed at 100%. If they only want to use a small part of your image (cropping in), then you want to send the 300 DPI/PPI to compensate.

@@TheArtofRetouching I am still confused if you make detail video and send link it would help very much

I run a fine art reproduction shop and we print almost exclusively from 300PPI and above files, often as high as 1200PPI. Of course it depends on your target market and price point.

You are asking all the correct questions. If you check a followup video to this one, it goes into the same detailed depth about Effective Resolution. It should explain to you what you need to do, and that is going with the largest possibly used size. In your case, 24x36" for the poster. It's still 300PPI, just the number of actual pixels used is more than a thumbnail, for example. Part of the video explains it like a brick patio made out of 1000 bricks. It doesn't matter what shape the patio is, just the fact that 1000 bricks are being used is the important part. Check the video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/o9R_kqqh1rumeX0.html

I had another KZfaq channel I worked my ass off developing, and after a year I made nothing on it, but spent thousands. I just got burnt out.

@@TheArtofRetouching ah man thats annoying as F! your content is REALLY good, you should try and recycle it maybe on another channel if it catches fire it would definitely take off!

I was once told that one of my videos was used in some Photoshop art class. But it's an old crappy video. I've long since thought this video should be mandatory for anyone getting into the printing industry. I did a lot of research to ensure everything I said was technically correct.

@@TheArtofRetouching i really need a photoshop tutorial but obviously a more up to date one, any you would suggest?

I will likely make more one day. But it's tough to make quality content like this, for KZfaq to not promote it or even pay for it. I have another channel I worked my ass off on, and after a year I dropped it because KZfaq never gave it a chance to grow. Shrug.

@@EternalGaze8 Thank you for watching the video. I haven't seen it in years, but decided to watch it again. It has solid information, and I stand by it, still to this day. I really do need to get back to creating videos like this, because they are so important, and nobody ever talks about it from a technical point of view like this.

wonder what happened as he just stopped posting!?