fixing a photo in PhotoShop

[sandbox]

Oh Well Water....
What's the problem Gregg?

[Gregg]

Problem?

QUOTE(Gregg @ Jul 31 2007, 07:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have a similar need - to remove a car from a digital photo of a covered bridge.

Not having PhotoShop, or any experience using it, I'm not sure where to turn.

Are there such services available commercially somewhere?

QUOTE(Gregg @ Aug 1 2007, 07:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[sandbox]

Gregg, I'm sure there are services that will work on your photos maybe even a place like Walgreens Drug Store. Sometimes the software that comes with your camera will do the job you need. My Olympus comes with CamMedia software that fixes many issues. I didn't try it in this case because I needed an education. Trying to get my head around noise filtering, softening, blurring, and the Photoshop program itself had left me grabbing for Captain Morgan and Pirates Cove.


Paddy, I looked at your suggested comparison http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_po...z3&show=all
and didn't find the Canon would offer me a 28mm wide angle or a decent zoom with stabalization.  Granted they say there are noise issues but there are noise issue in the Canon as well. I looked at all the Canons and none offer the size, wide angle and zoom in one package, nor is it easy to find any manufacturer that does.

I looked at their sample shots and they seem to meet my simple needs http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz3/page14.asp which is a smaller camera that can reachout and touch something beyond my Olympus.
 

The Lumix TZ3 is so close to what I need that I've been tempted to take one off the shelf at Office Depot, but I have this sense that if I wait just a little longer they will improve it to a point where I'll have no reservations at all.

[Paddy]

You're right that the Lumix does have a wider and longer zoom and comes with the IS, but I guess I found the image quality issues a little less to my liking. Fussy - that's me.

Of course, if it's not a rush, I'd wait - 'specially as the pre-holiday and inevitable shiny new cameras are just around the corner!

[sandbox]

QUOTE(Paddy @ Aug 3 2007, 03:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right that the Lumix does have a wider and longer zoom and comes with the IS, but I guess I found the image quality issues a little less to my liking. Fussy - that's me.

Of course, if it's not a rush, I'd wait - 'specially as the pre-holiday and inevitable shiny new cameras are just around the corner!

oh yes I hear that Santa's Horse is coming to town.

No one has it all, you just pick what suits you best. From the photos they took I can't really say I'd be sacrificing a lot but the gain would really be clear. I'd get my size, 7.1 mm, 10x zoom, wide angle, IS, all in one package. It is a bit more expensive than the Canon but without a long zoom I don't even want to buy a new camera. I'm really only considering a new camera because of a zoom shortfall. I don't really have a choice here, no one else has this package.  

[Gregg]

QUOTE(sandbox @ Aug 3 2007, 02:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gregg, I'm sure there are services that will work on your photos maybe even a place like Walgreens Drug Store. Sometimes the software that comes with your camera will do the job you need. My Olympus comes with CamMedia software that fixes many issues.

Thank you, sir. I have another avenue to try now.

[Thomas S. England]

Something has been nagging me about this thread and I've just now remembered while I'm at the computer. That is, not all zoom capabilities on digital cameras are equal.

Some cameras have a true zoom function which means that the focal length of the lens actually changes throughout the zoom.

On other cameras the zooming is accomplished (at least in part) by having the image cropped down. This is usually called a digital zoom, as compared to an optical zoom.

The only benefit of digitally zooming is that it lets the manufacturer make a misleading claim about the zoom capability.  If the digital zoom is not used, but you crop the image, you get the same result.

Of course, one of the results is that noise will increase in visibility since you are only using part of the total image, along with any lack of sharpness.

So when comparing cameras, be sure to determine if zooming is Digital or Optical. It will make a difference. Many cameras combine the two--you can zoom the lens to its longest focal length, then the camera will start cropping to give you the appearance of a tighter framing.

[Xairbusdriver]

QUOTE

If the digital zoom is not used, but you crop the image, you get the same result.

Minor point: That would be true if the cropping is done after taking the picture. If you crop by using optical zooming, while preparing to take the shot, you should have a much better image to work with. Of course, this assumes that the optical zoom is sufficiently accurate. Cheap lens give lower quality images no matter how they are used.

[sandbox]

Thanks Thomas, I guess i should have been more descriptive and said Optical Zoom. ;)Along with the Zoom offered on this Panasonic is a stabilization method that is not available on my old Olympus.http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz3/page4.aspI suppose i could get another SLR to perform at 300 ft. but I find if the Camera is not convenient then it gets left behind so I'm really stuck with purchasing a camera that will take long shots and fit in my pocket, then purchase software like what you've suggested to correct what mistakes that I have made, if possible.   I have learned from this experience that I was depending on my flash at too great a distance, 30ft. in some shots, and that it's range is closer to 10ft. or so. I don't think a new Panasonic would improve the pictures here, it was not the camera that failed, it was the careless operator.   In general, both Jane and I have said that we wish we had.....a better zoom....and when you both find the same restriction it's easy to correct. As long as I'm not loosing any quality compared to my Olympus (low threshold) I should be OK. The Leica lens in the Panasonic seems to be well received by people who write about such things so my reluctance to buy a Panasonic was pacified. For now I'm on hold, but if the itch for a new shinny camera becomes to hard to bear, I'll scratch it! ;)Thanks Thomas, I guess i should have been more descriptive and said Optical Zoom. ;)Along with the Zoom offered on this Panasonic is a stabilization method that is not available on my old Olympus.http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz3/page4.aspI suppose i could get another SLR to perform at 300 ft. but I find if the Camera is not convenient then it gets left behind so I'm really stuck with purchasing a camera that will take long shots and fit in my pocket, then purchase software like what you've suggested to correct what mistakes that I have made, if possible.   I have learned from this experience that I was depending on my flash at too great a distance, 30ft. in some shots, and that it's range is closer to 10ft. or so. I don't think a new Panasonic would improve the pictures here, it was not the camera that failed, it was the careless operator.   In general, both Jane and I have said that we wish we had.....a better zoom....and when you both find the same restriction it's easy to correct. As long as I'm not loosing any quality compared to my Olympus (low threshold) I should be OK. The Leica lens in the Panasonic seems to be well received by people who write about such things so my reluctance to buy a Panasonic was pacified. For now I'm on hold, but if the itch for a new shinny camera becomes to hard to bear, I'll scratch it!

[sandbox]

I took Thomas England up on his offer

QUOTE

If the image is important to you, let me know. You could send it to me & I will use Noise Ninja on it for you.

which have been returned to me, (sorry Thomas just noticed) and the result was better than expected. Although I'm going to try and learn a lesson from my sloppy picture taking, if this software doesn't require a long learning curve and little talent I may like to acquire it some day.

Thanks for your generosity Thomas. It makes… making mistakes more than worth it!  

[Thomas S. England]

QUOTE(sandbox @ Aug 25 2007, 09:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I took Thomas England up on his offer

QUOTE

If the image is important to you, let me know. You could send it to me & I will use Noise Ninja on it for you.

which have been returned to me, (sorry Thomas just noticed) and the result was better than expected. Although I'm going to try and learn a lesson from my sloppy picture taking, if this software doesn't require a long learning curve and little talent I may like to acquire it some day.

Thanks for your generosity Thomas. It makes… making mistakes more than worth it!  

I'll run through how I handled the images. I used Noise Ninja & three Photoshop actions which I have set up previously:

1. Noise Ninja:  This software can profile the image to help it determine the best fix for noise reduction. Takes a mere second or three.

2. Levels adjustment layer. This action creates a new layer in Photoshop which I use to adjust the levels, with the help of a histogram. All your images required me to move the whole histogram to the right, since the images were underexposed, giving no true bright, white pixels.

3.  Dodge selected parts. I have an action which creates a new layer which is nothing but 100% grey.  I then use the brush tool, a white brush to dodge, and a black brush to burn. I used the dodging to lighten the face of the woman on the left, since she was darker in the image.

4. Sharpening. I have several sharpening actions. In this case I used an action which sets the Unsharp Mask tool to 85%.

Finally, I flatened out the layers & save the changes.

Since I had these actions already made, the whole process took about 4 minutes per image, most of that spent on the dodging--getting the right brush size and choosing the opacity I wanted.  I make my changes on adjustment layers, rather than on the image layer since this is more non-destructive.  You are adding pixels rather than discarding pixels.

[Paddy]

So...can we see the result?

[Thomas S. England]

[attachment=584:P7291119.jpg]

QUOTE(Paddy @ Aug 27 2007, 11:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So...can we see the result?

[sandbox]

Thanks Again Thomas!

Now you see there's that learning curve....I wouldn't know which tool to use. If Auto Levels or Contrast doesn't work for me, I'm lost. And... the thing is..... most of my pictures are acceptable for personal use, normally no more than a dozen people on the planet ever see them and all they ask of them is a memory.

Knowing how light effects the outcome has been emphasized in this exchange. I was in an antique building that was almost lost to the wrecking ball and in need of restoration. We took the elevators from level to level walked down the wings in dark hallways that seemed that they would never end. It was like a scene from an old movie and not an environment that I’m accustomed to taking picture in, so I didn’t even consider that the yellow light, absorbing wood and wallpaper should be considered. Then there’s the distance from my subjects, standing too far away, zoom fully extended while relying on a small but normally adequate flash to illuminate what needed to be captured. Dah, a Big dah.

I carried the camera just in case, didn’t plan to take pictures….but. So the moment was a reflex just before we exited the building, an opportunity for a few more laughs. This sort of photography is what I am capable of but obviously not good at in all environments. If someone asked me to take pictures there I would have put more thought into it and taken a few shots early, viewed the result and adjusted the camera accordingly. Since no one asks me to take pictures the process is normally point and shoot.

This thread could be a benefit to the next member of TS who may, on the way home from the beaches, stop into the Biltmore for swim and a bite. Knowing that there are ghosts there that steal the light from their pictures could make the proper adjustments so to avoid the haunting.