[Scribus] quality images for press (digital camera? cheap/free online stock s? scan?)

[Louis Desjardins]

>hi, i am finding it hard to locate images i can use for press.
>
>at this stage i'm only looking for "abstract" or "texture" images which i
>can use as part of a background layer, most likely gradiated in
>transparency. images of skies, city scapes, tall glass buildings, water,
>patterns in nature, etc etc ..
>
>the problem i have is that most images that i can use royalty free are not
>detailed enough to be printed at the recommnended 300dpi (glossy brochure).

Hi,

Please note that 300 dpi is meant "at reproduction size".
You can also get satisfactory results with 225 dpi ... and there is 
at least one very nice product (commercial) "PhotoRetouch Pro" with 
which 200 dpi is just what you need, they say, for 150 linescreen. 
The best thing to do is try different dpi settings and see what suits 
your needs.
Many factors will affect overall image quality; dpi is only one of 
them, as Craig Ringer points out.

>
>stock image libraries that i have come across are too expensive for images
>at that resolution.
>
>my local photography shop (run by photography and optics enthusiasts) insist
>that i don't need a digitial camera with more than 2MP - i don't believe
>them! surely, the higher the pixels you can capture the more you can crop
>and play with the image before it becomes unusable - cropping an already
>small image will leave you with even less pixels obviously).
>
>some have advised that i use an analogue camera and scan the developed
>photos?
>
>
>can anyone advise on any of this? is a 5MP camera enough? can anyone
>recommended one that has a good end-to-end system (lens and processor, not
>just CCD).

Again, I agree with Craig. There are many things to be considered 
when it comes to image quality.
The MegaPixels value is for the most part about the "size" of the image.
The more pixels the larger the image.
If you intend to reproduce images at no more than letter-size, then 5 
MP is just about the minimum.

>
>or perhaps someone knows of a cheap/free online resource of high quality
>images?

http://www.openphoto.net/

>
>one option which is a bit crafty is to use low resolution images and then
>blow them up and apply various artistic filters to hide the fact that they
>were originally of low resolution - even tracing it to a vector format.

That could lead into a very interesting discussion! Basically, hiding 
low resolution is, imo, rather difficult if at all possible. Of 
course, you can "create" a totally different image with all sorts of 
filters... but we're definitely talking about different things here.

>
>t
>_______________________________________________
>Scribus mailing list
>Scribus at nashi.altmuehlnet.de
>http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/mailman/listinfo/scribus