PDA

View Full Version : How i can improve my pic. ?


LiquidoX
01-13-2007, 09:40 PM
Hi

I want to get a better picturequality out of my Handycam (EF81; 2 Mpixel) but i dont know
how i can decrease that noise and the yellow light. To improve the pics. ?


Here is a sample:
http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/8769/foto0085ox8.th.jpg (http://img174.imageshack.us/my.php?image=foto0085ox8.jpg)

I need your help. Please improve this picture and post me what you have done.

ThePhotographer
01-13-2007, 11:39 PM
I'm sorry to have to tell you that 2 Mpixels is nothing today - even small compact cameras for everyday users have many more pixels nowadays.

If you're looking for a very good quality image - I don't think you should be making photos with a handycam - it is simply not the tool for those things.

Datameister
01-14-2007, 08:11 AM
Agreed. There's little you can do to remedy this sort of image quality. If you want photos to turn out nicely, you'll need to spend a little dough on a nicer camera. Sorry! :(

roguenroll
01-14-2007, 11:35 PM
Agreed with above. only thing I can say is you will probably get much better
pics outside natural light, than inside.

LeonardoSchubert
01-15-2007, 08:00 PM
how i can decrease that noise and the yellow light
for the noise you can use a free software called neat image
for the yellow light, just play with hue/saturation "ctrl+u"

don't expect miracles though...

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/843/hpfilteredtd1.th.jpg (http://img49.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hpfilteredtd1.jpg)

Neil
01-17-2007, 07:12 PM
instead of just telling him how shitty his camera is, why not actually help him?
Yes the camera is not the best, but we didn't have 6 megapixel cameras 5-6 years ago and not all images are crap. You can get good detail and nice results through tweaking an image.

filter > noise > median (will bleed colors together and correct the noise a little, use it sparingly)
filter > sharpen > unsharpen mask (will sharpen color edges and make the picture sharper)
image > adjustments > hue/saturation (will allow you to tweak individual colors. Choose yellow and tweak teh sliders to shift it closer to another color. In this case bluer or whiter)
and of course:
image > image size (scale it to a smaller number of pixels and it will look better)

kraal
01-17-2007, 11:59 PM
auto color works well on this pic i tried it.

Datameister
01-18-2007, 12:18 AM
instead of just telling him how shitty his camera is, why not actually help him?
Yes the camera is not the best, but we didn't have 6 megapixel cameras 5-6 years ago and not all images are crap.

Okay.

Firstly, it's not about the megapixels. Secondly, yes, images taken with crappy cameras generally turn out looking like crap, no matter how great the photographer's technical knowledge and artistic prowess are.

So...don't get caught in on the megapixel race. Better image quality really boils down to the quality of the sensor in the camera and the quality of the optics in the lens(es). Cheaper cameras generally work with small sensors and substandard optics. The results are noisy, inaccurate images. It doesn't matter whether the final image contains 2000 pixels or 9000 pixels--there's still going to be noise, chromatic aberations, etc. Also, cheaper cameras generally offer much less control as far as exposure goes.

LiquidoX, if your camera has an ISO control, you should set it to as low a number as you can get away with. Setting it too high creates noise problems. Also, avoid shooting indoors, handheld, with only artificial light. Our eyes are much better at sensing light than a camera's CCD or CMOS sensor, so what appears bright to you may be quite dim to the camera. If you need to shoot indoors at night, turn on as many lamps as possible and use a tripod.

One problem with this photo that no one's mentioned is the motion blur. The noise makes it difficult to see, but it's there. Even if the noise could be magically removed, the resulting image would still be blurry. To solve that, take the shot with a shorter shutter speed and hold your hands as still as possible. Better yet, use a tripod.

Neil, your suggestions would be helpful for a less grievously messed up image. But I'm afraid that with today's technology, it's more or less unsalvageable, at least if we're talking about any sort of reasonable time frame and results that are considerably better than the photo's current state. The fact of the matter is, a camera needs to have a certain quality level if you want to turn out photos that don't flaunt the kinds of defects this photo does.

Neil
01-18-2007, 01:43 PM
But I'm afraid that with today's technology, it's more or less unsalvageable, at least if we're talking about any sort of reasonable time frame and results that are considerably better than the photo's current state. The fact of the matter is, a camera needs to have a certain quality level if you want to turn out photos that don't flaunt the kinds of defects this photo does.

yes i agree with all your points. But if someone is asking how to adjust colors in Photoshop, I felt the need to go into camera quality and technology would be too much and go over the head.

In his/her own defense, it was a picture of a desk/wall. haha. It's not like they were taking pictures of celebrities or weddings and asking for magazine quality results. His/her expectations seems reasonable enough, and hence the simple explanation.

ThePhotographer
01-18-2007, 09:20 PM
I also again agree with 99 % of what Datameister said. Only pixels do count some though.

We have a photostore and make silverprints of peoples' digital photos almost every day. It is quite clear that the less pixels the less quality in the images.

That said I surely do agree that what comes first is the lense. If you have one of the really high class brand names even with a small compact camera, you can expect much better quality, but most small cameras gifted with such lenses are at about 5 Mpixels at least. I don't think that the famous lense brands want to do anything less. On the other hand, you can have a lousy lense with 5-7 Mpixels and have lousy pictures as well ....

Neil,

although I actually do agree with you that we could have given some constructive advice, I have to say that nomatter what software you use, you will never get a mastershot out of this photo. I actually think that my best advice would be : forget about it .... sorry .... please don't cry ....

MUzza
01-18-2007, 10:25 PM
Quick go at your image

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/429/piccorrectedag0.th.jpg (http://img259.imageshack.us/my.php?image=piccorrectedag0.jpg)

I used the variations (Image-Adjustments-Variations(it may not be active in the menu if not turn it on) command in PS, it's far better than Hue/Sat, gives you lots more options and easier to use for a novice and experts than Hue/Sat.

To decrease the noise, used noise-median at about 3 then used fade median (edit) to pull it down a little to get it better than normal but not blocked out.

hamburgerlar
01-19-2007, 12:32 AM
I am not sure of what options u have on your cam but,

Try setting what is called white balance. Its basically, making a true white object look white when its captured. You may have to adjust the hue/sat/tint but it helps in making a true color. This has to be done in a 'white' light. One with a full color spectrum. Your pic looks like its too hot.
I always enlarge my images (not zoom but actually up the pixels) to see the little details. This can help you make changes in the lighting and such. Cheaper cams arent so bad its just that the processing cant handle what the higher price ones can. You have to make up for it in other ways, like pre and post. Just some more tidbits to chew.

DarioD
01-27-2007, 09:34 AM
If you're on a budget, consider getting a Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z-10 for around $110
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/cameraDetail.php?cam=600

I researched EXTENSIVELY, doing tons of comparisons and reading tons of reviews, before I chose this is my budget camera, and it simply rocks for professional and artistic Photography (but not point-and-click... You need a tripod). It is an ultra-zoom camera, with 10x Optical zoom (but no lens stabilizer, making it blurry for shooting without a tripod).

If you want point-and-click capacity, you need a newer model for around $200, with lens stabilization, like the DiMAGE Z3.
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/cameraDetail.php?cam=599
(photo gallery) http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/minolta/dimage_z3-review/gallery.shtml

These models are really a great budget camera (actually, I'm convinced they're the best for the price, for artists and pros), so if you need something new, on a budget, I highly recommend these.

ThePhotographer
01-28-2007, 08:19 PM
Sorry,

But I have to react to this one. This Minolta camera may be fairly good, but it is CERTAINLY not a "pro camera" !

Pro cameras generally cost AT LEAST ten times as much ! If pros choose to pay their cameras so much more expensive, there is certainly a reason. If they could do the job with a 149 $ camera, then why would they pay much more ?

DarioD
01-28-2007, 08:44 PM
Okay, but it can take some great shots:
http://deefrag.com/images/photos

Datameister
01-28-2007, 09:59 PM
Okay, but it can take some great shots:
http://deefrag.com/images/photos

I'm seeing noise, chromatic aberrations, limited dynamic range, and generally soft focus. These are problems that "professional" cameras and lenses go to great lengths to diminish.

DarioD
01-28-2007, 10:59 PM
Lol, I don't see any of that stuff, and I'm hypercritical. :)

Wait... okay, I see some minor noise in the pics that were originally very dark. This is from a batch of the first shots I took, moments after pulling the camera out of the box - none were on tripod, causing minor blur... as in microscopic, where individual hairs arent as perfect as can be.

Other than that, I use this for my pro work (full manual controls), and it makes a phenominal improvement from a handycam, as I recommended to the original poster. But for someone who needs a 4000x4000 image to be pristine down to the hair, you're right, it won't do... but I would gladly use this camera for shots that appear on the cover of National Geographic, and you won't know the difference.

The only thing it can't do is large-print portait work.

Neil
01-29-2007, 01:59 PM
jeez, this is turning it's a photography forum now. It's easy to say spend $1000 and get this camera. That's like someone buying a Mazda and trying to tweak it to make it go faster, and having someone say "why not just buy a Ferrari!". Well duh. That's besides the point.

Datameister
01-30-2007, 12:59 AM
All right, Dario. I'm putting my nitpicking gloves on. :twisted:

The fourth image is the worst offender as far as chromatic aberrations go; purple fringing is extremely noticeable along the man's face. Also, that entire side of his face is blown out--a problem that's more easily taken care of by using a professional camera that can shoot RAW (wider dynamic range). The first image exhibits a lot of outward blurring around the corners, too. You won't get that with a Canon L lens. The noise problem is indeed exacerbated by brightening an underexposed image, as you said, but higher-end cameras work harder to eliminate that noise in the first place.

I'm not trying to rag on your camera or you personally as a photographer, dude. :) I'm just saying that while these photos are great, their image quality wouldn't be accepted by, say, National Geographic, regardless of their artistic merit.

jeez, this is turning it's a photography forum now. It's easy to say spend $1000 and get this camera. That's like someone buying a Mazda and trying to tweak it to make it go faster, and having someone say "why not just buy a Ferrari!". Well duh. That's besides the point.

Point taken...but if you see someone getting ready for the Daytona 500 in a Model T, you'll make a point of telling them that they might want to update their wheels a bit. ;) I'm exaggerating, of course. My point was that yes, this is definitely a great bargain--but it's not a professional camera.

CGTalk Moderation
01-30-2007, 12:59 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.