SlotForum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,883 Posts
Having seen David Lawson's recent photograph in another part of the board, I very presumptuously thought I would offer a quick and dirty demonstration of some simple enhancements that can be made, very easily, to brighten up pics using Microsoft''s Photo Editor (or any other).
I hope you don't mind David.


David's Original



Autobalance using Microsoft Photo Editor

Photo Editor's Autobalance is as quick and easy as it comes, and sometimes does a good job but tends to exaggerate the contrast without doing anything at all for the mid-tones. It has left the wheel areas still rather dark and indistict

Manual Balance using Microsoft Photo Editor

Here, I manually raised the Gamma Level by a coupe of notches to either 1.33 or 1.47 (can't remember exactly now!) and then increased contrast a little as well. Autobalance never touches the Gamma/Midtones yet raising it by two to three notches is the best method I know of swiftly bringing a 'murky' picture to life.
Now we can see the wheels much better.
I realise I may not have the colour of the car exactly right as unfortunately I don't have the original to hand!

I could do a better job of detail work using Adobe Photo Shop, but that takes quite a while, where this took less than a minute per picture.
I hope it encourages people to experiment a little.
 

·
Al Schwartz
Joined
·
3,378 Posts
I think those are excellent examples. I usually take the easy way out. My current digital darkroom program is Paint Shop Pro 8 - most of the capability of Photoshop at about 20% of the cost.

One of its functions is an "autofix" option - one key stroke and it adjusts brightness, contrast, saturation, hue and does an edge-preserving smooth - works well on most things and you can still invoke individual functions for further correction.

I am so taken with the capabilities of these programs and so enjoy being "back in the darkroom" (in my student days, I always had a fully equipt laboratory darkroom available) that I am selling off my Leica equipment to finance a further investment in digital - I am currently using a Sony F707 but have decided to go the DSLR route - probably a 20D Canon (but I shall keep the 707 - the swiveling body is wonderful for close up work without the need the crawl about on the floor).

At the initial race on my new track two weeks ago, one of the participants, who is a professional videographer, borrowed my digital camcorder- a pretty fair Sony 3 CCD model- and shot about 30 minutes of tape. He has promised to edit and assemble a tape. If it seems to be worth sharing, I'll put up some clips when it is done.

EM
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,342 Posts
hi, Tropi
I like to use Photo Editor too, I know it used to come standard with the various Microsoft operating systems...haven't seen it in a while though. I keep moving it forward with each system upgrade. How would someone get it these days?

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
752 Posts
With out seeing the original model, I cannot comment on which photo is the best representation.

Personally I still prefer the original for detail recovery purposes. In the doctored pics there's too much information lost in the shadow areas for my liking. The third pic has alot of digital 'noise', under the sills, under the 16 on the side, and behind the rear arch.

Incidentally the first pic has a feel of a photo taken of the 1:1 car contemporary to when it was built.

A personal opinion only.

-Rob
 

·
Al Schwartz
Joined
·
3,378 Posts
QUOTE (Robert Davies @ 24 Nov 2004, 02:21)With out seeing the original model, I cannot comment on which photo is the best representation.

Personally I still prefer the original for detail recovery purposes. In the doctored pics there's too much information lost in the shadow areas for my liking. The third pic has alot of digital 'noise', under the sills, under the 16 on the side, and behind the rear arch.

Incidentally the first pic has a feel of a photo taken of the 1:1 car contemporary to when it was built.

A personal opinion only.

-Rob
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You make a valid point but, in all fairness, one must consider that the example, presumably downloaded from the board, was, most likely, already a fairly highly compress JPEG before it was downsampled to 640 X 480 or, at best , 800 X 600.

In my experience, if these techniques are used on a TIFF or low compression, high resolution JPEG which is then resized and compressed for internet publication, the artifacts that you note do not appear and the whole process can be compared to "dodging" and/or "burning in" in conventional darkroom technique.

EM
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
4,887 Posts
I don't mind my dodgy photography being discussed Tropi.

Interestingly I have been following a thread on a motor racing message board at the moment about enhancing photographs particularly old and damaged racing photos from the 50s and 60s.

My original photograph of the Mercedes was taken at my cameras lowest quality setting, it was in poor ambient light and resized down to a 26KB 550 pixel web friendly picture for the forum. I'm just trying to explain the average quality of my photograph, the same camera produces stunning images at the upper end of it's settings range.

I sometimes do fix my pictures using Adobe PhotoDeluxe Home Edition which is a basic package that was bundled with a scanner I had a few years ago.

Very interesting information from EM but I also concur with Rob's comments about retaining a period feel of the photograph.


My original picture


After two clicks for Instant Fix and Sharpen which took me about 10 seconds.

David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
752 Posts
QUOTE (David Lawson @ 24 Nov 2004, 08:53)After two clicks for Instant Fix and Sharpen which took me about 10 seconds.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The two clicks of 'Instant Fix and Sharpen' is a winner in my opinion


<mutter> Years I've wasted in photoshop.... and "Instant Fix and Sharpen" does that! <mutter>



-Rob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,883 Posts
The responses are interesting in being quite at variance with each other.
This isn't surprising, given that we all have very different views on what we like to see and what we think it represents.

For instance a picture with a really large amount of digital 'noise' or photographic 'grain' could easily trigger comments ranging from,
"That is absolutely APPALLING! "
to
"Incredibly realistic and gritty photo-journalistic representation! "
or similarly opposed opinions.


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as always and I often equate photographic 'profundities' with the somewhat exaggerated opinions expressed by some petentious wine buffs.


Having said all that, my 'quick and dirty' wasn't directed towards photographic connoisseurs (I wouldn't DARE!), but specifically to draw the attention of newcomers to a particularly easy way in which one very simple manual alteration can be made, OUTSIDE of the usual 'Quick fix', which sometimes produces unexpected, unwanted or even distinctly worse results than the original because it rarely, if ever, adjusts the gamma or mid tones.
Whoo - that was a long sentence - very bad form!


Quick and dirty summary: Gamma is good!
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
4,887 Posts
I must thank Tropi for his comments on my photograph as it set me thinking.

I am a bit of a Luddite and hadn't really thought about editing my photos but after the little bit of fixing that I did with the Mercedes photo in this thread and by coincidence buying a new camera that came with Photoshop Elements 2.0 I decided to take a look at some of my old motor racing photographs.

I've got loads of Formula One 35mm slides as result of trudging around Brands Hatch and Silverstone for 30 plus years and I have scanned some of them but have never been entirely satisfied with the results.

Using Photoshop with just a couple of clicks taking a few seconds I can enhance this photo of Clay Regazzoni from this.....



To this.....



Once again thanks Tropi - the only problem now is I've now got hundreds more to tweak let alone cleaning up the thousands of scratches!

David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,883 Posts
That's a nice piece of work, David.

A sideways reference to another topic that becomes quite 'hot' at times - interesting to see the colour of the track and then compare it with the colour of the tyres and then with the colour of the car itself.
Anyone still saying that track should be BLACK?


Re scratch removal - I have no direct experience, but I am told that Nikon film scanners come with good automatic scratch removing software. I can't think how software can differentiate between a scratch and real markings, but that's what 'they' say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,883 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Only two hours - you are a fast worker!
Would have taken me days . . .

But what tools(s) did you use, Nuro?
Clone, probably, 'healing brush' maybe, but anything else?
Good result by the way!
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
4,887 Posts
I'll try a restoration job on an old family photo now I've seen your excellent work Nuro. On the other matter can you paint Ninco track grey with emulsion paint or similar or does it wear off with use?

Tropi I would also like to know which tools.

David
 

·
DT
Joined
·
5,195 Posts
I did it a little while ago, but it would have been the clone tool and a little blur tool. perhaps a little painting with a textured brush.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top