Photoshop restorations (improvements?).

[Touchdown]

Some people say the purity of the original shot should be the epitome of the work, but as with any work of art, it's all in the vision of how the artist sees his/her work. I fall on the latter category. These pics were taken almost 20 years ago, and never taken care of. It took about 15 minutes for each, and PSE did half of the work.







As you can see, I suffer from a serious case of crooked frame syndrome (CFS), and still suffer from that Today. The point degree rotation/cropping is a life saver for me.:D

[Touchdown]

1. A couple of more examples in the Macintosh forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=233&topic_id=782&mesg_id=782

[Deja Q]

6. PCs can do that too, but those were nice examples you linked to.

Thanks!

[Philostopher]

2. I hardly ever use a photo unretouched.

I haven't learned to use PS yet, we bought a PowerBook a while back and got a copy of PS (the Mr. was finishing up his degree and took advantage of student discounts), but I tweak the contrast and gamma on most of the pictures I take with the photo management program that came with our Olympus cameras. The older version of the program actually is better at that stuff than the newer one -- it has a 'free rotate' option that works pretty well, the newer version doesn't have that.

Those did clean up well -- especially the Eiffel Tower one!

[alfredo]

3. there was a saying that snapshots are made in a camera,

but photographs are made in the darkroom. Now photoshops are made in PS PSE, or GIMP.

[Longhorn]

4. I edit all my photos.

The problem is, it takes time and that's why so many of my photos are still sitting in this computer and on my desktop PC and backed up on CD. I'd like to print them out in album form. One of these days . . .

If I didn't have a digital camera, I'd still be waiting for the time to put the prints into albums and they're certainly more retrievable in digital form. At least I have them organized in files!

[Touchdown]

5. You just have to find the time.

I've got a bit more than 500 scanned, finished, and in iPhoto, just in the last 6 months. That's with volunteering for Kerry as well. Sometimes you just have to force yourself to sit down for a couple of hours. Once I'm there, I get obsessed, look at the time passed, and my back is stiff. I'm such an idiot.

Set a goal of 10 shots a night, 3 nights a week scanned in.

[Deja Q]

7. But film is much better for:

* nighttime work
* long open shutter periods (avoid thew consumer Canon D-SLRs; they have a knack of introducing artifacts...) for effects such as (particularly waterfalls), fireworks, et al.
* more shadow/highlight detail.
* higher resolution (35mm can be 10-25MP equivalent depending on speed, quality of the negative media itself... Advantix (which is utter shite) is about 14mm (less than half the size of a 35mm neg) and is about 3MP in quality. It's rubbish and not useful for anything about 4x6 prints (and even then the grain is somewhat obvious, to a trained eye. Advantix panoramas are a bit of a joke too, as they're always grainy. Yuck.)

Also, while it is possible to lower a resolution digitally, it cannot be increased digitally. As film scanners improve (please don't ever use a flatbed to scan images!), so can the resolution quality. But your 3MP digital camera you spent $500 for now has to be replaced with a 7MP camera that you'll pay $500 for. In 2 years, you'll pay $500 for a 9MP camera, and so on. (ISO 200 film is comparable to 15MP and is going to be of much higher quality.)

Digital is convenient and, in certain situations where higher contrasts is a plus, is very effective. But for intricate detail and waterfalls and other special effects, I stick with film. For the moment.

[Touchdown]

8. I thought advantix was 25mm.

The cartridges are certainly larger than the 110 carts from years ago.:shrug:

I honestly don't know why they marketed Advantix so late. The ability to have a proof sheet has always been with 35mm, and digital was just around the corner. :eyes: Just seemed like a format doomed to failure.