Quality of pictures

[Michel]

Please, ridges attention with the quality of the pictures for the shows.

These slide shows are public and you must give a great attention to this parameter.

The Luigi'slide show in this respect superb: good lights, sharpness...

It's not so difficult...

Everyone causes much, but one does not see real effort on this subject.

Such an amount of worse if I shock you a little, but at least I have the merit to say it.

Thank you for your atention.

[Alan Lyons]

Hi Micheal,

I agree with what you say. Even if the show is only for private viewing we should not let the standard down. As wee "wet process" photographers say film is the cheapest item you will buy for your photography so why be so mean with it as to not re shoot if nessary. Also because this id a digital forum we tend to spend a lot of time discusing the machanics of the show rather than the creative side of the process. Remember how the two shots of the waterfall got us all going?

Alan

[Alan Lyons]

Hi Micheal,

I agree with what you say. Even if the show is only for private viewing we should not let the standard down. As wee "wet process" photographers say film is the cheapest item you will buy for your photography so why be so mean with it as to not re shoot if nessary. Also because this id a digital forum we tend to spend a lot of time discusing the machanics of the show rather than the creative side of the process. Remember how the two shots of the waterfall got us all going?

Alan

[Michel]

Example for digital pictures:

when you photograph with a digital camera, you must to use the better quality:

4 megapixels for the Canon G2.

After, you resize it in the format (example) 800x600 or 1024x768,

and adjust a little with a photo editing software (noise...sharpness...contrast...)

[think(box)]

Michel - Thank you for the suggestions. I am a quality nut too, but dare I admit this? I am working on a show to post that was photographed with a 1.3 Megapixel camera in the year 2000. That was all I had at the time, while now I have what I consider to be a world's best semi-pro digital camera, the 5 Megapixel Sony DSC-F717 (lots of opinions gathered on that before purchase) .

I will of course do the best I can to enhance and compress the images before I reduce them from my old camera's original 1280x960 size. Things like Photoshop Auto-Levels and Unsharp mask, and many of the all-in-one tools like Intellifix, etc. are helpful. And retouching, cropping, straightening, cloning etc. are always needed somewhere.

My point is that the fledgling amateur, newbie pro, or just the every day photographer may produce some nice art, yet of imperfect quality. We have to start somewhere. I appreciate a creative, artful production even if the perfectionist in me is cringing at quality attributes.

In the interest of helping members with skills development, I would like to see a forum category for this. But until then perhaps forum members could start a new topic (you could do this) and reply thread (one reply per contributing member) in which each member "Edits" the same post to enhance tips, but doesn't create new replies under THAT topic. That way the topic stays compact and concise while other topics explore content feedback in the new "Quality" topic.

A post can only be edited by the member who entered it, and administrators of course. And for those reading edited posts, it may be necessary to hit the "Refresh" browser button if the web page doesn't autoupdate when visited (depends upon user's browser settings).

Would you like to try this? We could all benefit in knowledge, efficiency or both.

Cheers!

[Alan Lyons]

Hi all,

just a quick one as I'm supposed to be working, I would say to Thinkbox that as a beginner we all have admired the work of the great advanced workers and aspire to that level. But when I talk to novices in my Society ( Photographic Society of Ireland) I tell them that if the work you are presenting now is you at your best then thats fine. But I would suggest that if you look at this work say a year on, then you should find that you have improved your standard. This way the feeling of getting nowhere can be seen to be false,

Alan

[LumenLux]

I am all for "quality" of pix. I am even more for discussion and critique of photos and of PTE shows. I think this forum is one that has such a friendly supportive attitude that the members could really help each other. I think Bill I would likely support your proposal, but (maybe because my hour here is getting late) I am not sure I understand your modified way to use the forum. Maybe you can hold my hand on this one.

While on the "quality" theme, the predecessor to your Sony 717 is the camera that motivated me to do more digital. I do not own the camera but have really enjoyed using one owned by my son-in-law. I have taken, imho, gorgeous photos and blown them up "successfully" to 20 x 30 inches. Which leads to a topic I would welcome your input about - The roll of the lens in digital cameras. Most my digitals are done with a tiny body 4.3 megapixel Konica. I have also blown some of these files into 20 x30 prints. They seem to do ok with 4.3 megapixels vs. the 5 meg of the Sony, but there is something lacking in the "quality". I think it is that your camera ( and the earlier version) have such a great lens. But as you know, most consumer digitals have a very tiny lens. Any comment?

[think(box)]

Hi Bob (LumenLux) - I'll post a separate reply about the tutorial topic idea, but as for the lens:

The Sony DSC-F717 has a Carl Zeiss, Vario-Sonnar F2-2.4/9.7-48.5mm lens. My father is a lens expert and has ground many of them. I'll ask him about the color accuracy features when he returns from a trip. I recall that there is some interesting detail about the element construction and lens surface coatings. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that some of the finer image quality improvements are due to the lens complex itself. Here is Sony's description of the lens:

Carl Zeiss® Vario-Sonnar® Lens

Famous for sharpness & color accuracy, the Vario-Sonnar 5X Optical zoom lens features 13 elements in 10 groups with 2 aspheric elements and 6 blade aperture. Its fast f2.0 aperture is great for low light shooting.

And then there is the photo pickup. They used a new generation in I believe both of the Sonys, 707 and 717. For the 717 here is Sony's description:

2/3" 5.0 Megapixel Super HAD™ CCD

Super HAD (Hole Accumulation Diode) CCDs provide excellent image quality by allowing more light to pass to each pixel, increasing sensitivity and reducing noise.

This is probably just as important as the lens in image quality. You can tell what kind of image CCD was used by zooming in to the pixels on a picture that has very thin, dark lines like a fine tree branch near the leaf attachments. If you see a violet shadow or ghost image it is a Hole Accumulation Diode CCD pickup. Previous generation pickups produce other colors for ghost images.

I agree with you fully on the image quality observation between simple, tiny lens cameras and large, complex, color-accurate lenses. I'll post more on this if my father can give me a modest description of why, or perhaps another forum member can give the technical details.

Cheers!

[Ken Cox]

if you want to spend some time. vist this fella's site and read how he does stuff using digital camera's - -reverse mount adapters and standard 35mm lenses and describes all pertinent data

http://www.mplonsky.com/photo/article.htm

ken

[LumenLux]

http://www.mplonsky.com/photo/article.htm

ken

Wow - if he could just sharpen them up a bit!

[Ken Cox]

Bob

ya funnin' me

i snagged 250 of his picts and made a show for the grandkids -- a lot of oo's and ah's

they are perfectly exposed and good reference mtl.

ken

[LumenLux]

Yup, I too was awed!

[GrahamS]

Hi. This is my first posting. (No not in the Army). I agree that the first thing is capture the image and make sure it is of the best.

Don`t let the technicalities of computing smother the skill and creativity of the photographer. Use your digital software as an aid or servant not a master.

You may be interested in my website of unretouched photos to show what I think is digital quality.

Website is gsprake.co.uk

Graham

[Michel]

See a difference between these two images ?

it's here !!!

[ronwil]

Yes Michel I see the difference but what have you done exactly to the one on the right please?

Ron [uK]

[think(box)]

Ken - Thanks for the tip on Mark Plonsky's impressive photo work!

Before and after pictures by Michel: I took avant and did Adobe processing in an attempt to match apres. I can get close, but not an exact match. My guess is that you are showing us original quality differences, not how nicely you can clean up a bad picture. Is this what you intended?

And Graham - nice pic's!

[Guest guru]

In my opinion Michel simply used Neat Image, even if such effects can be reached also by DC Enhancer: two excellent softwares to reduce noise and sharpen images.

[Michel]

And knowledge to make "Bocuse" ?

look at this example

[Ken Cox]

Michel

hate to critque a "master"

but in

"See a difference between these two images ?" -- the 2 barn picts

while you might have cleared up the "noise" in the sky, you have increased the moire or jaggies in the feed pens -- the jaggies are more noticeable in the diagonals -- roof outlines pen outlines, fence etc.

ken

[Michel]

I'm not a master, please, as you say...but I love the nice photography.

The digital picture can be more nice with a little work (also with free software...).

(And don't speak about .raw file: it's another history....for masters perhaps ?)

What I want to say it is that everyone must be "nice" to the presentation of the images:

in any case, I work and only after I speak.

Is this really so difficult ?: not, to take a little time simply. The difference between speaking and thinking before speaking.

Look at Versailles here: one minute of work ! no perfect but.....

French Castle

Boys, let's go !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest guru]

Ken, you must though admit that the second picture appears better than first.

...But I think we are going away from the main question. What is more important? Creativity or technical quality? If we want to create a good work, both are necessary.

I totally agree with Graham when he says "Don`t let the technicalities of computing smother the skill and creativity of the photographer. Use your digital software as an aid or servant not a master". But do you think great photographers like Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Philippe Halsman, Richard Avedon, Ernst Haas, Sam Haskins disdained the technique?

[Ken Cox]

Guido

as they say

"beauty is in the eye of the bolder"

when i was trying to put my initial automobile calendar show together, Bussty brought up the fact that it was too bad i couldn't minimize the "moire" "jaggies" on the chrome - - www.scantips.com to the rescue -- i scanned the same picture over and over using different methods would send the pict to Bussty -- he would comment and i would go at it again -- it took a month of work but i feel i did a pretty good job of scanning offset printed glossy paper pictures to achieve what i judged as acceptable.

took a lot of R&D

great being retired so that one can stay with something to completion.

i could see subtle changes in the flowers and the castle but the barn before shot would be a real challenge for anybody to make an acceptable print

you must also remember we have seen the kind of work Michel has produced in the past -- that is why i named him "MASTER"

ken

[Alan Lyons]

Hi All,

I love the way these types of postings go on and on. I had a look at the two comparative links and was impressed by the clean images achived. But (here it comes) , i also agree that we must not loose sight of the creative side of the images. Crisp and clean does not always mean good. Modern office or cosy fireside chair? Both good in their place. Remember the opening sequence in "Saving Private Ryan" was shot with out of date film stock and processed with old developer to create the ols news reel effect.

Then the porely exposed landscape with nodatail in the shadows and strong highlights some would call a beautiful sunset,

See ya now, I'm off to have a look at "Neat Image"

[think(box)]

In my opinion Michel simply used Neat Image, even if such effects can be reached also by DC Enhancer: two excellent softwares to reduce noise and sharpen images.

Guido - THANKS! (Alan - what did you find?) I purchased Neat Image and DCE AutoEnhance after studying them and they are great! For the benefit of other forum members who did not know about these tools:

These are somewhat complementary tools, not alternate choices. These tools have knobs and dials to turn. They try to make it very simple for the novice, but it really makes a difference if you take the effort to understand what you are doing.... After hours of experimentation I have determined that a good sequence of operation is:

1. Use Neat Image to reduce image noise unique to each and every camera by sample from picture. And for a low-res original do a 50% sharpen. Neat image does the noise removal to perfection and is best done prior to DCE AutoEnhance, even though that tool can do noise reduction. And Neat Image Pro does full BATCH OPERATION ON ALL CONTENTS OF FOLDER.

2. Next use DCE AutoEnhance (DCE is from "Digital Camera photoEnhance") to do a large number of image processings each with strength control, including:

* Auto-Balance & Mid-tones Balance

* Sky Blue "cast remover" (reflections of blue sky that turn objects bluish can be undone)

* Color Enhancement (works great - mostly a saturation modifier)

* Filter simulation (e.g. #1A UV skylight filter; about 100 others)

* Sharpening, including unsharp mask

* Hot pixel removal for long exposures in camera without built-in noise reduction

* Noise reduction for general and portrait modes

* Resizing

* Text insertion in photo

* BATCH OPERATION ON ALL CONTENTS OF FOLDER

P2E shows will benefit greatly by the quality enhancements from these tools. Both have free trials and DCE has permanently "free" low-feature version. If you process a lot of images you will want pro versions. If you can't afford both, then get only DCE AutoEnhance.

Photoshop only scratches the surface of what these tools can do.

[LumenLux]

Thank you Bill. I had dl'd the trials per the original suggestion here. I have not yet opened the trials, so your report will aid in my initial look.