I've got a question for you photo bugs. Below are two pics, same subject, same lighting conditions but run through two different editors for sharpness only. Which one looks better to you?
Photo one was edited with the Aiptek PhotoTools that came with my old Pencam.
Photo two was edited using PhotoImpressions 4.0 that came with my Vivitar Mini Camera.
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
What did the original photo you started with look like ???
Mark.
¡ uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ 'dlǝɥ
This is the original.
So, back to the question, which of the two pics below looks better?
Well, out of the two you propose, I'd go with the first one if I had to choose.
The pictures are obviously very low resolution, and one thing you don't want to increase in that type of picture is contrast. Contrast is just going to make those large pixels even more prominent and make the picture look edgy.
Are you holding your camera, or is it resting stable on it's own ? That will make a big difference as well no matter what kind of camera you have.
Here's your original picture that I did a couple very simple adjustments to. All I did was reduce the contrast, then lightened it a bit to compensate. I think the final result is much smoother looking. Also, the pixelated glow around contrasting colors isn't as prominent ....
The photo size is 352 x 288 pixels and is the only one the camera offers. The camera is very small. about the size of a box of matches and only cost $10. Here's the info on it.
UP2CSX wrote:I agree with Mark. The original just needed a little touchup to look good. I think a lot of photo editing programs make pictures look far too pixilated when they sharpen the focus. What kind of camera and what is the megapixel rating? I think it might also help if you only reduced the phote to 800x600 resolution. It looks like you're using 640x480.
Actually jeffrey is not reducing the image but rather enlarging it. The original photo taken by the camera is only 352 x 288 at 72 dpi. It is never going to be a sharp and clear photo at 640 x 480 let alone 800 x 600. Sorry.
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
This is the pic enlarged to 640 x 523.
IT'S A $10 CAMERA !!!
I'm impressed they look THAT good !!!
A little touch-up, and you sure can't gripe about the investment.
howmus wrote: UP2CSX wrote:I agree with Mark. The original just needed a little touchup to look good. I think a lot of photo editing programs make pictures look far too pixilated when they sharpen the focus. What kind of camera and what is the megapixel rating? I think it might also help if you only reduced the phote to 800x600 resolution. It looks like you're using 640x480. Actually jeffrey is not reducing the image but rather enlarging it. The original photo taken by the camera is only 352 x 288 at 72 dpi. It is never going to be a sharp and clear photo at 640 x 480 let alone 800 x 600. Sorry.
I see that now that Jeffrey posted data about his camera. Given the specs, it actually does a pretty good job but it never will produce the kind of images that I think Jeffrey and all of us would like to see. Mark did a good job of making the photo look better but there's only so much you can do with a low res picture. I have a Kodak DX6490 that's 5 megapixels and I'm always surprised at how crummy I can make a 5 megapixel image look.
UP2CSX wrote:I have a Kodak DX6490 that's 5 megapixels and I'm always suprised at how crummy I can make a 5 megapixel image look.
"It's a poor workman who blames his tools for his poor performance!"
Bob Boudreau
CANADA
Visit my model railroad photography website: http://sites.google.com/site/railphotog/
Jeffrey, of your two pictures, I like the first one best, although I think that Mark's adjusted image is even better. Either one is a big improvement over what your old camera offered, and you certainly can't complain that you were overcharged.
Wayne
jeffrey-wimberly wrote:I know what you mean. I have a Vivitar 3500 series 3.5 megapixel camera that takes really rotten photos and is of absolutely no use for close-up shots.
If your old Vivitar IS a 3500 series, they only have 1.3 mega-pixels with either a fixed focus or a minimum focus of 1m with no macro OR zoom .... no wonder you couldn't get satisfactory pictures !!!