How damaged photos my camera takes?
This discussion is connected to the gimp-user-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.
This is a read-only list on gimpusers.com so this discussion thread is read-only, too.
| How damaged photos my camera takes? | Juhana Sadeharju | 05 Sep 19:33 |
| How damaged photos my camera takes? | Patrick Shanahan | 05 Sep 19:52 |
| How damaged photos my camera takes? | Kristian Rink | 05 Sep 19:58 |
| How damaged photos my camera takes? | Tim Jedlicka | 06 Sep 06:57 |
| How damaged photos my camera takes? | Juhana Sadeharju | 14 Sep 12:05 |
| How damaged photos my camera takes? | ajtiM | 16 Sep 03:28 |
| How damaged photos my camera takes? | Mogens Jaeger | 25 Sep 12:52 |
| 20060905190005.C5EACA6806B@... | 07 Oct 20:18 |
How damaged photos my camera takes?
Hello. I took photos with Canon IXUS II + automatic mode: ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/pics/freephotos/juhana/withstand/IMG_3893.JPG ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/pics/freephotos/juhana/withstand/IMG_3896.JPG ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/pics/freephotos/juhana/withstand/IMG_3922.JPG ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/pics/freephotos/juhana/withstand/IMG_3923.JPG
There is something wrong with the camera as can be seen from the pairs 3893/3896 and 3922/3923. In photo 3893 the flowers glows and are white, not blue. In photo 3922 the trees looks somehow poor. Between the two versions I only inserted white paper (3896) or tilted the camera toward the blue sky (3923).
What is wrong? How to fix the photos? How ever I could make a panorama photo out of 3922 and 3923? How damaged the photos are? In what way(s) the photos are damaged?
Should I switch the camera to some other camera? Canon's top model Powershot 3 IS seems to damage the photos too, but I don't know if the camera can be tuned in the automatic mode because I had only brief moment to test the camera.
Why Canon thinks it is ok to damage the photos in automatic mode? Very sad, I have taken hundreds of photos for my freephotos project and mostly they look as bad as 3893 and 3922. More mild automatic settings would have allowed me to fix the photos later. Not now.
Juhana
How damaged photos my camera takes?
* Juhana Sadeharju [09-05-06 13:38]:
Hello. I took photos with Canon IXUS II + automatic mode: ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/pics/freephotos/juhana/withstand/IMG_3893.JPG ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/pics/freephotos/juhana/withstand/IMG_3896.JPG ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/pics/freephotos/juhana/withstand/IMG_3922.JPG ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/pics/freephotos/juhana/withstand/IMG_3923.JPG
There is something wrong with the camera as can be seen from the pairs 3893/3896 and 3922/3923. In photo 3893 the flowers glows and are white, not blue. In photo 3922 the trees looks somehow poor. Between the two versions I only inserted white paper (3896) or tilted the camera toward the blue sky (3923).
What is wrong? How to fix the photos? How ever I could make a panorama photo out of 3922 and 3923? How damaged the photos are? In what way(s) the photos are damaged?
The only thing I see is that the 'white balance' is not correct. Check your camera's settings for white balance and see if you cannot correct it.
How damaged photos my camera takes?
Juhana;
Juhana Sadeharju schrieb:
Why Canon thinks it is ok to damage the photos in automatic mode? Very sad, I have taken hundreds of photos for my freephotos project and mostly they look as bad as 3893 and 3922. More mild automatic settings would have allowed me to fix the photos later. Not now.
The pictures aren't really damaged - actually, that's what the "automatic mode" is all about: The camera itself tries to figure out what settings fit best to take an "optimum" shot, optimum in terms of values measurable by a machine. To a machine, determining how the pictures finally will "look like" is a rather tough (not to say impossible) job. If you want to have pictures which look according to your demands or needs, probably you will have to switch off automatic mode and do the job yourself. ;)
Cheers, Kristian
How damaged photos my camera takes?
Others have covered this but maybe I can add a little bit.
3922 (and parts of 3893) can't be fixed in Gimp (or any way image processor) - over exposure means no information was able to be captured - Gimp can't do anything with no information. 3923, because it is underexposed, can be fixed a bit in Gimp. I would suggest using the Levels tool. slide the end pointers to the edge of where the histogram starts to rise. Then slide the middle pointer around until you get some detail in the trees.
More importantly - it is much easier to fix when you shoot the photo. Your point-n-shoot has some limitations, but you can work around them with some practice (and manual reading). Here are some more gorey details. Let me know off-list if you need/want more help or explanation.
Learn to use your whitebalance. Especially if you are shooting a shot like the flowers with ALL that green. Your best bet would be to (read your manual) set a custom white balance (WB) using that white card of yours. Use this WB as long as the lighting doesn't change. When you go inside and shoot people sitting around those tungsten lights you'll want to change your WB.
If you don't want to spend the time to do a custom WB, then pick the appropriate built in WB (daylight, cloudy,...). On a sunny day (daylight) you have all this blue in your photos from the big blue sky, so the camera takes a little blue out of your photo. Also your flash "blew out" the flowers - it made those light blue(?) flowers look white. Turn off your flash.
The problem with the other photos is mostly exposure problems. That might be a little bit harder to fix with your particular camera (or any point-n-shoot). In 3922 the meter saw all those dark green trees and tried to make them a nice neutral light grey (all cameras do this) so it let too much light in leading to over exposure and trees that are too bright and a sky that is all white. 3923 has the opposite problem. Saw all that bright blue sky, tried to make it a nice light grey (tried to darken the sky) which it did, so you get a nice dark blue sky, but trees that are too dark and loose all their detail. Your best bet is to either read up on Exposure Compensation (EV Compensation) and AE Lock (Auto Exposure Lock) - especially if you are trying to do panoramas. Also change your metering mode to spot in these cases.
How damaged photos my camera takes?
Hello. I took photos with Canon IXUS II + automatic mode: ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/pics/freephotos/juhana/withstand/IMG_3893.JPG ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/pics/freephotos/juhana/withstand/IMG_3896.JPG ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/pics/freephotos/juhana/withstand/IMG_3922.JPG ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/pics/freephotos/juhana/withstand/IMG_3923.JPG
Here is my own analysis of my photos above. This is starting to be more a topic of a photo group discussions. I just wanted to know what the post processing people like you think about the photos.
It looks like in both photo-pairs the "bad" photo (3893 and 3922) is overburned. The blue flowers (3893) and the sky (3922) shows white which cannot be fixed.
In addition to overburning, the photo 3922 shows some kind of intensity curving. I.e., take the better photo 3923 and try modify it to look like the bad photo 3922 with the curves tool. The curve I had to use was of the damaging type -- overcurving.
White-point problem? I don't know how to correctly change the white sky in 3922 to the blue sky like in 3923.
The manual mode seems to not be manual at all: In photoing a new tree scene in two parts with the parameters fixed, the photos were exposed differently. The common area in two photos is not the same. It is just like the pair 3922/3923: with overburning. The camera does something automatic in the manual mode.
While the exposure setting can be locked for multiple photos and that would have solved the problem, not always I have a blue sky available for reference! The camera should expose all parameters to user, or have a possibility to use existing photo as a reference, or have a preset system for exposure.
I hope camera manufacturers start increasing the number of bits in the pixels so that camera could take and view good photos without overburning. They are now marketing more pixels instead of improving the photo quality (lens + exposure). At least people can see the poor photos with a good resolution. Overcurving is mystery to me: the photo 3923 modified with a mild curve looks better than 3922.
Juhana
How damaged photos my camera takes?
On Thursday 14 September 2006 05:05, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
Hello. I took photos with Canon IXUS II + automatic mode: ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/pics/freephotos/juhana/withstand/IMG_3893.JPG ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/pics/freephotos/juhana/withstand/IMG_3896.JPG ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/pics/freephotos/juhana/withstand/IMG_3922.JPG ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/pics/freephotos/juhana/withstand/IMG_3923.JPG
I am playing with 3922 picture.
My question is where can I find more help for use Gimp in photography. I
bought Akkana Peck book but I am not satisfied.
How damaged photos my camera takes?
ajtiM wrote:
On Thursday 14 September 2006 05:05, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
Hello. I took photos with Canon IXUS II + automatic mode: ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/pics/freephotos/juhana/withstand/IMG_3893.JPG ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/pics/freephotos/juhana/withstand/IMG_3896.JPG ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/pics/freephotos/juhana/withstand/IMG_3922.JPG ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/pics/freephotos/juhana/withstand/IMG_3923.JPG
I am playing with 3922 picture.
My question is where can I find more help for use Gimp in photography. I bought Akkana Peck book but I am not satisfied.
