A short lesson in photography

[rcman50166]

Agh someone had to do it eventually. I stare at it everyday and I am not satisfied. And no I am not questioning his ability as a photographer. I think there was just more that could have been done to it.

[Ragnarok]

But I would be hesitant to do that to my camera.

Unless you run a dodgy script, you shouldn't be able to damage the hardware with CHDK.

Personally, I don't have a memory card for my camera that doesn't have CHDK on it.

Mostly, I just use it the advantages of RAW (because CHDK allows you to save the RAW files) and shutter speed control when needed.

~~~~~

Also, I personally think you've ruined that photo. Your version is horrendously over-saturated, noisy, and shows jpeg artefacts.

It may not have been perfect in the first place, but it was certainly better than many (and what you've done to it).

[rcman50166]

A second look does seem to show a little bit of saturation. But I didn't touch the saturation. I increased the curve, turned down the yellow and increased the vibrance. As for the noise, it is inevitable when working with a jpeg image. Had it been my way the photo would be iso 80 and raw.

[Ragnarok]

Vibrance still affects saturation.
The thing is, some areas should be low saturation. Not everything out there is a garish shade or a sharp colour contrast.

As for the noise, it is inevitable when working with a jpeg image.

Not entirely. In your case, it's exacerbated by your choice of adjustments. It is noticeable if you're looking for it on the original, but in your edit, it stands out like a sore thumb.

Even if you have to make edits that cause the artefacts, Photoshop has an option to help remove them (although I try to avoid needing to use it).

~~~~~

I still think you've made adjustments which have dramatically worsened the result. The colour in the first one looks real. The colour in the latter looks like the only shades available were taken from a pack of kid's crayons.

[rcman50166]

Well I was going for a certain look. I suppose it didn't turn out the way I wanted to. I was looking for more this vibrance.

[rcman50166]

Hey guys. I thought I'd share a little trick I figured out. Instead of starting a new thread, I thought I'd share it here.

A short lesson in photography first. As is the purpose of the thread.

Flash

Intro
Flash is your friend. If you don't have enough light to see every nook and cranny of your subject, chances are your camera won't either. So naturally, if you have common sense, would to be to create more light, if its outside then you obviously can't turn the sun up. So you would turn to your flash. BUT, reader beware, the built in flash usually does a terrible job.

Symptoms of Bad Flash
There are a few things to look for to determine if the photo has a bad flash.

"Flash Burn", as it is known, can show up in a photo as a part of a photo washed out with a white glare. You obviously wont see the detail in that part of the image.

Sharp Flash is when the source of light is so direct that there are little to no shadows. When there are shadows they contrast greatly and make the photo an eyesore. a sharp flash will also only illuminate what it is directly pointed at. This leaves the surrounding edges of the photo under exposed or the central part of the photo will be overexposed.

Redeye is a problem all of us have encountered whether it be you or a demonic looking friend of relative (ie ) It has to do with light bouncing off the back of your eyes. The reflection appears red and evil.

Remedies

A diffuser is an opaque material that goes in front of a flash to disperse the light more evenly on a shot. They are usually white to get the best white balance effects but colored diffusers exist for specialized cases. They will greatly reduce flash burn and sharp flash.

A bounce light is another practical solution. This isn't recommended for the average joe trying to take a photo. Flashes can get very expensive very fast and a lot of point and shoots do not even have the proper shoe mount on top. However a bounce light will greatly reduce flash burn and sharp flash. The way it works is by bouncing light off a ceiling to diffuse light and illuminate the subject from the top. So this method obviously won't work outside or places with high ceilings. But most can point forward like a regular flash.

Multiflash and preflash can reduce redeye. How it works is before the photo is taken, the flash will flicker to reduce the chances of blinking in the photograph and dilate the pupils to reduce reflecting light from the eyes. If your camera cannot do this, simply take more than one photo. Eyes should adjust by the time the thrid shot comes around. (if your not using continuous drive )

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

This is a bounce shot, notice the different light angle, well ignore the room light. It is a very well balanced photo

well ignore the room mate

[rcman50166]

Yes, that as well

[psycix]

Nice guide. But remember people: don't use flash if you don't have to.
Proper lighting usually looks better then a flash photo.

When taking pictures I usually turn on all the lights in my room.

[rcman50166]

Yes I should have mentioned that earlier. I must have forgotten. Oh well.

If anyone has questions about how to make a photo look better, you may ask here. If I don't know, I can ask a few professionals I know.

Also I can edit photos if you send them to me. Feel free. rcman50166@yahoo.com