>> You also can't focus a fuzzy image
> 
> Your photos didn't look fuzzy to me.

Try this one:

http://www.orphi.me.uk/rev1/04-Photos/2007-04-14/DSCF0016.html

(For whatever reason, my camera utterly refuses to focus on small 
objects. I guess it's beyond the physical limits of the lense system or 
something...)

Trying to sharpen the image just amplifies the JPEG compression, sadly.

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Wed, 05 May 2010 09:41:03 +0100, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did  
spake thusly:

>> Heh. And perhaps you remember me remarking at the time that you can  
>> apparently buy a £200 Nikon D40 (?) and attach a £7,000 telephoto lense  
>> to it - as if you'd want to. ;-)

That and the poor quality of your mum's camera.

> A friend of mine borrowed a 7K (or similar) telephoto lens to put on his  
> old Canon 300D body when he went to watch an air show.  The photos are  
> absolutely stunning, and I don't think if he had used a more expensive  
> body the photos would have been *much* better (but on the other hand,  
> without the big lens they would have been rubbish).
>
> If you want to take action photos of things from far away under dodgy  
> light, then even the cheapest dSLR body will be fine, just get the  
> biggest lens you can afford.

Toot "This is where DSLRs rule as they're both bigger and have  
interchangable lenses. In this case the maxim is simple - the bigger the  
better. A bigger lens means more light getting to the sensor, means a  
faster shutter speed and less blur, and a lower ISO and more detail and  
less noise." ;-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

> What isn't fixable is lighting problems. (E.g., part of the image is 
> correctly lit, but everything else is too dark.)

A better camera won't fix this.  If you really want to fix this then just 
take two different exposures and combine them later in software.  Pros have 
to do this too when they can't control the lighting.

>>> In short, post-processing is a hopeless task.
>>
>> Professionals would disagree with you.
>
> Professionals would have taken decent photos in the first place. ;-)

They looked decent enough to me!  And typically pros will not let the camera 
do *any* processing, and import the raw sensor data to their computer for 
manual colour, sharpness and exposure control.

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Wed, 05 May 2010 09:53:59 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake thusly:

>>> Hell, *my* 3 MP camera would never, ever take a picture like that, no  
>>> matter how perfect the lighting or how close up you were. The sensor  
>>> just isn't of high enough quality.
>>  If it was bright enough and you were a metre or two away from the  
>> action then even a cheap consumer digital camera should give a pretty  
>> decent image:
>>  http://www.flickr.com/photos/visithra/321853035/
>>  That one was taken with a Canon A620.
>
> Well, try this:
>
> http://www.orphi.me.uk/rev1/04-Photos/2007-04-14/DSCF0011.html

That looks familiar I wonder why?

http://flipc.blogspot.com/2009/04/orphis-photos-part-2.html

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

> Trying to sharpen the image just amplifies the JPEG compression, sadly.

Just delete out-of-focus images.

Post a reply to this message

On 3/05/2010 23:22, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> Well, there are cheap student versions
>
> Oh yeah - I hadn't thought of that...

Well, actually, AFAIK even those versions are 300 to 600 Euro, I 
wouldn't call that cheap.

Although, compared to 3000Euro, yes, it is :)

cu!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 05 May 2010 09:10:00 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>>> How much did you think it was?
>>> ebuyer.com, Adobe Creative Suite 4, Complete Package, Windows:
>>> £1,502.62
>> 
>> That's what happens if you don't shop around - you end up paying a
>> ridiculous price for a product. ;-)
> 
> No, I'm pretty sure that's what it actually costs.

Arguably, that might be MSRP, but by shopping around you can get a 
cheaper price on it.  That's why it's always a good idea to shop around.

> OK, let's try Insight. (Sure, they're not the cheapest people around...)
> 
> Adobe Photoshop CS4: £587
> Adobe Creative Suite 4 Master Collection: £2,420 Adobe Creative Suite 4
> Production Premium: £1,815
> 
> I'm not making these numbers up!

No, I believe you're finding those prices, but also have a look at the 
source I quoted - you can't deny that it's available for much lower 
pricing than you've found.

> (Photoshop Elements, however, is only £60 - which matches other prices
> I've seen around.)
> 
>>> If that doesn't make you feel slightly dizzy, I don't know what
>>> will...
>> 
>> I know I'd feel kinda dumb if I paid that much for it knowing that I
>> could get it for £361.58.
> 
> I cannot believe it's the same product. Not for 1/3rd of the price. It
> can't be.

Yes, it can be, most of software pricing is profit.

> Then again, you said you got the price from a US website? Last time I
> checked [back when £1 = $2], Adobe Acrobat 8 Professional was £400 in
> the UK and $400 in the US. (IOW, the UK version was 2x the price.) I
> don't know if that's still the case...

It isn't.  I did the price conversions using that day's exchange rate as 
provided by xe.com.  Those exchange rates are supposed to be realtime 
AFAIK.  But if you're creative in purchasing items like this, you can 
certainly get the US price if you want (I do this all the time with items 
purchased in the UK; I have them shipped to a friend there if the 
supplier won't send it to the US, and my friend either ships the item to 
me or brings it the next time he's in the US).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 05 May 2010 09:53:59 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> Hell, *my* 3 MP camera would never, ever take a picture like that, no
>>> matter how perfect the lighting or how close up you were. The sensor
>>> just isn't of high enough quality.
>> 
>> If it was bright enough and you were a metre or two away from the
>> action then even a cheap consumer digital camera should give a pretty
>> decent image:
>> 
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/visithra/321853035/
>> 
>> That one was taken with a Canon A620.
> 
> Well, try this:
> 
> http://www.orphi.me.uk/rev1/04-Photos/2007-04-14/DSCF0064.html
> 
> That's probably a metre or two away, it's a dazzlingly bright June
> afternoon, and the image sucks. It's flat and utterly devoid of colour.

It's not a function of the sensor, look what a couple seconds of 
postprocessing in GIMP shows.

http://www.imagebam.com/image/7b757979306284

I increased the colour saturation and adjusted the brightness/contrast a 
little.  Took < 10 seconds to do.

> http://www.orphi.me.uk/rev1/04-Photos/2007-04-14/DSCF0011.html

http://www.imagebam.com/image/24509579306856

Almost the same adjustments on this one.

> There's no way my camera would ever capture the lush colours and sharp
> edges of the images you show.

Well, I'd disagree.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 05 May 2010 12:35:02 +0200, scott wrote:

> And typically pros will not let the camera do *any* processing, and
> import the raw sensor data to their computer for manual colour,
> sharpness and exposure control.

Exactly - the adjustments I made were pretty basic with GIMP (similar to 
the ones you made), but if RAW format images were available, there'd be a 
lot more room to adjust things like exposure.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> you can get the latest Paint Shop Pro 

Yeah, would be great if it f'ing worked. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message