Please Help

[louisa_edwards]

<p>I have CS3 and Lightroom. I know I need to get a book and read how to use them but I haven't had time yet to get one. It also doesn't help that I have such an old computer (built in 1997, upgraded parts sporadically).<br>

I took the following picture this weekend and I really like it but I can not figure out (using either program) how to make it look better.<br>

Is it me or will it just not get any better no matter what I do? At the rate I'm going I should stick to pictures taken from my cell phone, they are not so grainy!</p>

<p>Thank you,<br>

L.<br>

<img src="http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b93/GnR_Girl/BirthdayGirl.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

[chris_werner]

<p>What camera settings did you use (i.e., JPEG or RAW, compression level)? Is this a crop?</p>

[louisa_edwards]

<p>It is a JPEG crop, the original picture was 3072 x 2048.</p>

<p>Camera settings were:<br>

ISO 400<br>

47 mm<br>

f/3.7<br>

1/1000 sec</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>You have a very low resolution picture that's very grainy that looks like it was taken with a P&S. Outside of running it through a degraining program, like Neat Image, and sharpening it a bit, I'm not sure what you can do.</p>

[allardk]

<p>Louisa, could you define 'better'? How would you like it to look? Be aware that Photoshop can sometimes correct technical aspects of a photograph a bit, or remove small nuisances. Don't expect miracles.<br /> Since this is an in-camera JPEG from a P&S, it has quite a bit of noise reduction and sharpening applied already, giving a bit of a 'plastic' look. But there is still a lot of chroma noise left. You could (maybe) have set your camera to iso 100, 1/250 to reduce that noise. Noise reduction can be done more effectively when converting from RAW, but there is for example NeatImage (free version available) to clean that up a bit.<br /> You were also dealing with a scene with a lot of dynamic range. Your camera exposed the person correctly, leaving a grossly overexposed sky in the background. Not much you can do about that anymore, I'm afraid. You could make it darker, but not bring back any detail.<br>

If you post a more specific question on what you would like to change in this image, it will be easier for people to point out how to do that.</p>

[chris_werner]

<p>As Mike says, your options here are somewhat limited as you're seeing noise and pixelation. A RAW file may have given you more options as JPGs are a lossy compression format, but at the end of the day, your crop represents only 5% of the pixels in the original picture, so there's not much data there to work with. Sorry we can't help more.</p>

<p>P.S. - For what it's worth, the EXIF data on the photo shows that you've cropped to a 0.34 megapixel image. There is indeed a good chance your cell phone camera's resolution exceeds this.</p>

[rainer_t]

<p>You could try software to denoise the image ... I append what NeatImage gives me (with auto-settings since I have no profile for your camera)</p><div></div>

[louisa_edwards]

<p>Thank you! I'm going to get the free version of Neat Image. To me better would be smoother, not so nosiy but also detailed.<br>

It looks good on my camera, then I upload it and I want to chuck my computer out the window! LOL<br>

I'm on a steep learning curve and I just have to keep trecking. I'll get there eventually.</p>

<p>The crop is .34 mp? I wonder how to crop the image and keep it's original mp (it should be 10), any tips?</p>

<p>Again thank you guys so much. Some day I will post something decent! Hehe</p>

<p> </p>

[allardk]

<p><em>The crop is .34 mp? I wonder how to crop the image and keep it's original mp (it should be 10), any tips?</em><br>

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you cut 340.000 pixels out of a 10 million pixel image, that's what you get. You can upsample it to 10MP if you want (photoshop: image -> image size), but that does not give you more real detail. It can look better when printed, though.</p>

[chris_werner]

<p>Louisa,</p>

<p>To amplify what Allard said, think of it like this. The pixels are actual physical objects, tiny little squares on the sensor. If you print the full picture and then cut just the part you want with scissors you are just removing "excess" pixels. If you then enlarge what's left, you are increasing the apparent size of the pixels to the point you can see them, kind of like putting your face right up near a TV. Hope that helps visualize the issue.</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>My $.02: If you really want to flatten the learning curve, concentrate on shooting better in the first place. The problem with this image is that you didn't fill the frame enough when you took it in the first place. The bad news: this will take some time and effort on your part. The good news: your photos will get better faster if you put in the time and effort to learn the basics and get comfortable with them. It's the most bang for the buck in photography that anyone ever gets.</p>

<p>For now, I'd forget about Photoshop, Lightroom, shooting RAW, etc., and put your camera on auto-everything and shoot jpgs. Concentrate on framing the image before taking the pic (quick rule of thumb: fill the frame). Spend time reading the camera's manual to get comfortable with controlling the camera to get focus and exposure consistently right. Sure, the manual is boring, but try taking practice pics for each section you read as you go through it. If you frame your scene correctly in the viewfinder, and are comfortable operating the camera correctly, your pics will get much better in a hurry. There's just no getting around putting in the time and effort on the basics if you want consistently better photos. You want to control the process, not the other way around.</p>

<p>After you get comfortable with that, THEN advance with the software. If you don't have fundamental problems with your photos in the first place, you won't have to spend as much time, effort, and money on fixing them later. Good luck!</p>

<p> </p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>I agree with Allard (not unusual) that ISO 400 might have been a little too high given that it produced a shutter speed of 1/1000. Higher ISOs will produce grainier images so I would suggest using the minimum ISO to achieve the shutter speed you desire.</p>

<p>Grain is not typically visible on your camera's LCD display because the grain is smaller than the pixels on the display. You can't rely on the LCD to properly evaluate your photography unless you are using it to view the histogram and even that isn't any sort of guarantee.</p>

[chris_werner]

<p>D.B.'s advice is very sound, but given that this picture was shot at a 35mm equivalent focal length of 264mm, it's quite possible that Louisa couldn't get closer to the subject. Regardless learning the equipment and photographic basics including composition will both improve your photos and help you anticipate issues like this one.</p>

[louisa_edwards]

<p>My subject was on the far side of a horse barn, 80x160 I think and lighting was ok but my pictures kept turning out really dark. I upped the exposure but that did not help either. One of the ladies that does agility with us is a photographer and she helped me with my camera settings.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>...my pictures kept turning out really dark. I upped the exposure but that did not help either....</blockquote>

<p>That does help to clarify matters, along with the information you gave about the exposure:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Camera settings were:<br /> ISO 400<br /> 47 mm<br /> f/3.7<br /> 1/1000 sec</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My best guess is that the photo was severely underexposed. Boosting the brightness also increased the noise.</p>

<p>Rather than fixing the problem afterward - extreme edits, noise reduction, etc. - you'll find it more rewarding and less frustrating to review the basics for starting out with good exposures.</p>

<p>If you check the link at the top of the home page for the Beginner Forum, you'll find a previous discussion thread with many links to illustrated online tutorials and videos that can help walk you through the basics of getting good exposures in all kinds of lighting. Take it step by step and take lots of practice photos. The digital camera is an excellent learning tool since you can quickly review the results.</p>

<p>See the small headline labeled:</p>

<h2>You can find great links to <strong>illustrated tutorials <a href="../beginner-photography-questions-forum/00RljT"><em>here</em> </a> </strong></h2>

[louisa_edwards]

<p>The original<br>

<img src="http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b93/GnR_Girl/f715de13.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[jeff_higdon]

<p>Call me crazy for stating the obvious but, even though your photo was taken outdoors possibly on a bright day, your settings/your camera was fooled by the varied background of very bright and very dark parts. A fill flash would have helped. Did you use flash? Looking at your original (not the processed image) it appears you did not. Also, your setting might have been for "evaluative" exposure which would measure across the entire image and if you wanted primarily the young lady to look the best then a spot exposure setting (if your camera allows for it) might have worked better.</p>

[louisa_edwards]

<p>We were inside a horse arena and I used the flash on the camera (Lumix DMC-FZ28). The metering mode was the one with the spot in the brackets (aren't I the camera savvy person lol).</p>

<p>I should have used spot metering?</p>

[fabrizio_r]

<p>Hallo Louisa, you can use some power editing tool like Photoshop or others, but they can help you to correct some technical fault or adjust some parametres, cant do miracles ... <br /> <br /> I start to take photo when the photograph was on flim and the photo should be correctly built on camera, because you could get just some post edit but not too much, i m still thinking the photo ve to be make in the shot, so try to choose at the best the cut you desire and the light and composition whe you take the shot; if you would use some post edit better you choose for a RAW format, it ll let you more possibility to edit the pic</p>

[rnt]

<p>Louisa, the EXIF data in your image indicates that your flash fired but the camera didn't detect a return (usually because the subject is too far away). Odd, because I don't see an indication that the flash even fired in the image itself. If it had, your exposure would probably have been much closer to what it should have been...</p>

[jeff_higdon]

<p>Louisa:<br>

Go to your manual for your camera and read pages 53-54 and try compensating for exposure and do some bracketing. Your scene was filled with light and dark parts and the camera was giving you an exposure to try to satisfy the entire scene and as a result it did a poor job all around. Let me know if it works for you. That's a very nice camera from what I understand.</p>