fixing a photo in PhotoShop

[jepinto]

QUOTE(Thomas S. England @ Jul 31 2007, 04:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

can somebody teach me how to do these reduced size thumbnails of images?

[attachment=498:attach.jpg]
Click the browse button, navigate to the file location, click upload.
[attachment=499:2attach.jpg]
click on the little green arrow(ed) attachment.
[attachment=500:attach3.jpg]

png is allowed, as is jpg but not both.

Allowed types of attachments
[attachment=503:allowed.gif]

[kps]

Thomas, you use Nikons and I'm wondering if you use Nikon Capture software? It has some pretty decent image manipulation tools.

For my second attempt, I started with Nikon Capture Editor to reduce the noise, adjust levels, curves and then finished in Photoshop.

[krissel]

I maintain my preference for the impressionist look.  

In fact I would enhance it and take advantage of the artistic license therein.  

[sandbox]

Tom I had reset my pocket Olympus at home to the 3:2 format and apparently changed something else along the way. Normally I don't have these problems so I was pretty disappointed when I discovered how badly the results were. I concluded that it must have been a light issue because as I was leaving the Biltmore I took a last shot inside the pagoda (below) where the result was far different. I'll send a few photos your way, that we've selected as keepers and thank you for your help.

Paddy thanks for the offer, I think learning how to do the basics will help me with future dilemmas that I'm sure I'll find myself in. I really depend too much on auto settings with these pocket digital cameras and this experience will remind me that I should pay closer attention in the future.

Kbear, like you I use very basic PS tools because, I guess, I've never been faced with this situation. My cameras usually take pictures without issue. Of course I don't expect a lot from my skill-set or equipment either, but in this case the pictures were important to others.

KPS, I'm getting similar results as yours, it's sort of creamy or blurry I think? I lack the vocabulary for this subject so I may not be describing what I see, so that others can comprehend.  

[sandbox]

QUOTE(krissel @ Aug 1 2007, 12:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I maintain my preference for the impressionist look.  

In fact I would enhance it and take advantage of the artistic license therein.  

From an artistic perspective I suppose one could see speckles on someone else's dress and face as enhancement, but how would you feel if the speckles were yours? I vaguely remember that photo of you standing with the Governor of N.J., do you think a few strategically place speckles would have been an improvement?  

[krissel]

You bet it would!  

[jepinto]

off topic!  The Biltmore is GORGEOUS!!  Does the Sunday buffet require reservations?  And I can see bowling shirts and shorts are not the norm.

Jane looks good, how do you look cleaned up?

[Thomas S. England]

When I was working on the shot of the women, I noted that the ISO was 400. On this new shot of the pagoda, it was 60.

Having your camera set to auto ISO, those decisions were made by the camera. When there was ample light, the camera selected the lower ISO, hence you had less of a problem with noise.

I use Nikon capture very rarely, just on problems frames (thankfully, I don't have many of those). Capture is an excellent program, but too slow for me to use when dealing with large numbers of images.  It does have the uPoint feature, which lets you apply changes to selections within the frame, not across the whole image. That can be quite useful at times.

I use Photo Mechanic constantly to import my images, rename them, move them around, email frames, make quick websites and for my initial editing. Then I send the photos in batches to Photoshop's Adobe Camera Raw, since I shoot virtually everything in the RAW format (which Nikon calls NEF).

The software for dealing with digital photography is a crowded field, changing everyday.  Aperture and Lightroom are both hot contenders these days since they also can act as cataloging programs.  Lightroom may well become my choice for image software.

I maintain that the time required to handle digital files is more dependent on your skill & knowledge of a program than on the speed of the program itself. At this point I am so familiar with with Adobe Camera Raw that I can use it very quickly.

[Gregg]

QUOTE(jepinto @ Jul 31 2007, 06:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

QUOTE(Thomas S. England @ Jul 31 2007, 04:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

can somebody teach me how to do these reduced size thumbnails of images?

[attachment=498:attach.jpg]

Congrats, TSE - your interjected question wasn't ignored.

[Paddy]

The problem in the photos is clearly the ISO setting. You're using a camera that is now 5 years old and has a small sensor (relatively speaking) and it just doesn't do ISO 400 very well. (Most P&S don't do ISO very 400 well...) Check out this photo in the review on Imaging Resource:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D550/D55FAR400.HTM

Generally, the point and shoot cameras don't do as well as the DSLRs in the noise department at higher ISO ratings.

From dpreview.com:

QUOTE

ISO equivalence on a digital camera is the ability to increase the sensitivity of the sensor. This works by turning up the "volume" (gain) on the sensor's signal amplifiers (remember the sensor is an analogue device). By amplifying the signal you also amplify the noise which becomes more visible at higher ISO's. Many modern cameras also employ noise reduction and / or sharpness reduction at higher sensitivities.

....With tiny, high pixel count chips noise is always going to be an issue, and to a large degree this is more a test of the effectiveness (both measurable and visible) of a camera's noise reduction system. Designers have to balance the desire to produce smooth, clean results with the need to retain as much detail as possible (if you blur away the noise, you blur away image detail too). These crops show that all manufacturers find it difficult to produce an acceptable result at anything over base ISO from 10 million pixels crammed into a tiny sensor.

Unfortunately, your camera was never reviewed at dpreview, so you can't see how it does in their very good noise tests, but in just quickly perusing the reviews of various cameras that are reviewed, it becomes pretty clear that when it comes to noise, you more or less get what you pay for. Check out the review for the Nikon D40 for instance. Then compare it to say, the Nikon P5000 Both are 10MP cameras, but the difference in noise levels is pretty striking.

Clearly, choosing the ISO setting yourself is key - at least you then know what you're going to get. You might even want to run your own comparisons in a couple of different lighting conditions to figure out what you find acceptable with YOUR camera, if Phil Askey hasn't already done it for you at dpreview.com. (BTW, SB, your camera in the UK was the 300Z...I don't know why some manufacturers persist in confusing us with different naming schemes in different markets!!)

[sandbox]

QUOTE

Having your camera set to auto ISO, those decisions were made by the camera. When there was ample light, the camera selected the lower ISO, hence you had less of a problem with noise.

I had noticed that myself Tom, when I arrived home and opened the camera among the details in the window was ISO 60, still set from the last shot I took.

Jen, I was the only one handling the camera so there are no shots of me. The Biltmore Brunch is both casual and appointed, there are rooms to separate the beach/pool folks from the Sunday-go-to-meeting crowd, so you could wear your bowling attire and fit right in. They prefer reservations, especially for large numbers, of course, don’t we all, but the guard at the gate will direct you to the parking lot without one. The prices are reasonable @ $22 bucks a head, as compared to the other historical resorts around here like the Don Caesar http://www.doncesarshop.com/detail.asp?product_id=KGSB @ $90 or the Renaissance Vinoy. http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/tpas...-and-golf-club/

Paddy it was just as much the fault of the operator as it was the settings I stood to far away and pushed zoom to the limit, (below)  where I could have been closer to better utilize the flash. It’s been many years since I’ve seen this problem; I have many old 35mm photos taken on trips to Mt. St. Helen and St. Mary’s Glacier that need to be worked on as well. When I purchased this camera it was considered a good choice for it’s size, and has served me well through the years. I still don’t want to go back to an SLR because I find it’s not convenient enough to carry everywhere and so I don’t and consequently don’t have pictures of things I happened to capture because I snuck the camera into Jane’s Purse.

[Paddy]

SB, that was my thinking as well, until I tried a friend's DSLR a few years ago, and two years into using a Nikon CoolPix 950 exclusively. It quickly became apparent that there was a lot I'd been missing!!! My answer now - I have a DSLR (Canon Digital Rebel 300D, and I'll probably upgrade to a 40D if and when they ever get around to releasing it) and some very good L-glass lenses, which I use whenever carrying the weight around isn't an issue. When it is, I have a Canon A640, which does a pretty good job, though nothing like the Rebel. After toting the Rebel and all its lenses through a multitude of airports to the Bahamas in April, I reluctantly came to the conclusion that I wasn't going to be happy carrying it all over in Europe this summer, so I took the A640 instead. Did I miss some pics? Probably. Do I regret it? Not really. It would have been difficult to really spend a lot of time on the photography anyway - we were usually traveling at what my husband calls "kid speed" - ie: not as much time to just stop and absorb as I would have liked. As it was, I was always getting left behind while taking photos!

However, it all depends on what is important to you and whether you have a primary interest in photography or not. I do, so the answer was fairly simple (though not especially cheap!!!!) I love my DSLR, but there are definitely times when it is just too much to carry around.

[sandbox]

Paddy I'm leaning towards a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 for it's zoom while still being compact. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz3/

My needs are small and yet they lack zoom more times than not, so if the Lumix will fit in my pocket and reach out 300 ft. with a decent photo that's all I pretty much require. I'm still waiting for someone or Panasonic itself to come up with something a bit more finished, but if not this camera just may suit me.

[Paddy]

I went through the debate with myself twice recently, and both times opted for better image quality over zoom. Got a Canon A640 for myself in February and a Canon A570IS for the kids to use in Europe last month. Both have 4X optical zooms. A few times it would have been nice to have a bit more, but probably more often, I found myself wishing for a slightly WIDER lens! At any rate, they both seem to offer better image quality than the Panasonic, largely due to the Panasonic's heavy-handed noise reduction. Compare the noise reduction tests on both at DPreview and you'll see the difference. I figure if you've got great image quality, you can always afford to crop a bit...

The A640 is a slightly larger camera than the Panasonic, but it also has more options to override the automatic settings. The A570 is smaller, lighter and hasn't got the handy moveable screen of the A640. It also has 7.1MP instead of 10, but on the plus side, it does have image stabilization. It's also cheaper, of course. The A640 is a very sturdily built camera - feels very solid. Another thing - both of them take AA batteries, which is a must for P&S cams in my book. (Convenience, after all, is one of the main reasons a lot of us buy these cameras in the first place!) The 570 only requires 2 batteries, which helps keep its weight down. The 640 takes 4, but seems to last a good long time if you use 2300 mAh NiMH batteries or better.

[Gregg]

Oh well...