| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/04/2002 05:40:48 PM · #1 |
Okay. Just for the record I am gonna freak out if someone tells me my picture is unsharp this week. I put my camera on a tripod and even set the self timer to avoid any shake coming from pressing the shutter button. So no fuzziness... checked it myself, everything is sharp.
so nobody go say my picture isn't sharp this time neither. On a lighter note Im gonna be eating a LOT of produce this week :) |
|
|
|
09/04/2002 05:52:08 PM · #2 |
Your photo can be dead sharp when it is taken, but whenever you scale an image down to fit dpc rules you get blurred edges. A solution is to do an Unsharp Mask after scaling, or if you can to shoot the photo at 640x480 to start with.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2002 05:53:32 PM · #3 |
BS - I don't get the rant....I checked your gallery (previous entries) and skimmed the comments. I didn't see any fuzzy references. For that matter, mostly read comments that screamed wonderful photography and good to great focus. Your camera is a high end one. Your photos reflect that same quality as do the comments against them.
Having a bad day? And just for impish deviltry - your comment needs more clarity/sharpness. Could you run it through a filter? Swash
|
|
|
|
09/04/2002 05:56:26 PM · #4 |
Your kitchen fridge photo looks acceptably sharp.
And just a note, I sharpens mine before I shrink it. I think it gives a smoother result.
I really expected to get hammered this weak having an unsharp image. I sharpened it more than I have ever sharpened a photo in my life, and I thought I was going to get called on it, but not yet. It is actually doing fairly well.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2002 01:28:30 PM · #5 |
I know which picture is yours and I think its unsharp.
Originally posted by BigSmiles:
Okay. Just for the record I am gonna freak out if someone tells me my picture is unsharp this week. I put my camera on a tripod and even set the self timer to avoid any shake coming from pressing the shutter button. So no fuzziness... checked it myself, everything is sharp.
so nobody go say my picture isn't sharp this time neither. On a lighter note Im gonna be eating a LOT of produce this week :)
|
|
|
|
09/05/2002 01:34:48 PM · #6 |
I have never noticed any loss of sharpness from resampling my photo from full size down to 640x480... I *do* believe that the method of resizing instead of resampling would cause this problem tho...
|
|
|
|
09/05/2002 02:15:27 PM · #7 |
How do you resample photos?
|
|
|
|
09/05/2002 02:19:20 PM · #8 |
I suppose that depends on the software... I use Adobe photoshop elements, which works the same way as all the other adobe products... what software are you using?
|
|
|
|
09/05/2002 02:33:26 PM · #9 |
photoshop 7.0. I usually crop and then save for web where I make it 640x480.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2002 02:43:24 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by petcentral:
photoshop 7.0. I usually crop and then save for web where I make it 640x480.
Try this:
Instead of cropping, use your rectangular marquee select tool. Once this tool is selected, set it to the constrained aspect ratio mode and set the ratio to 640 and 480 or 64 and 48 or 6.4 an 4.8 (all the same ratios). Then make your selection. Once you have your selection, choose edit/copy to copy the selected portion of the image to memory.
Next, choose file/new to create a new image file (photoshop will default to the size of the image you have copied into memory). Once your new canvas is open, choose edit/paste to paste your selection into the new image file.
Now, you have a new image file that is the selected area from your old file.
Next, go choose image/resize. Make sure the bicubic resample is checked. Change the pixel dimensions (changing one dimension should automatically change the other proportionally). Then choose view/actual pixels and you will have the same results I get.
You should see no loss in clarity by using this method.
I have never tried it your way so I don't know what the result of that is but I will play with it some :)
|
|
|
|
09/05/2002 02:45:24 PM · #11 |
Wow thanks a lot. I gotta try it out now for my fruit and veggie pic.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2002 02:56:11 PM · #12 |
Let me know if it works out better for you. I get the impression quite frequently that some odd methods of resizing images are causing some quality problems. You are using the same camera that I use, so I definitely know what your results *can* look like :)
|
|
|
|
09/05/2002 03:28:14 PM · #13 |
Another possibility...
In Photoshop 6 (I assume it's the same in PS 7) I select the Crop Tool and go up to the tool menu that pops up. There I enter "640 px" and "480 px" in the width/height fields. This keeps the cropping box constrained to the right proportions. Then I draw the box, move it around, resize it, until it looks right and then apply the crop. The image will then be the right pixel dimensions for submission.
I prefer to hold off on unsharp mask until after I've sized the image to 640x480 (or 640x427). I feel like it gives me greater control over sharpness of the final image.
Jeremy |
|
|
|
09/05/2002 06:24:33 PM · #14 |
For me, the lack of sharpness comes in the compression.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2002 06:52:08 PM · #15 |
Unfortunately Paintshop pro 7, has a problem with that methoid John. You can move your predetermined crop area around in CROP but not in sellect. I tend to select and copy (ctrl-c,ctrl-v) the general area I want. Do a smart resize on just the longest size, but maintain ratio. Then crop to the exact dimentions. I find it a bit easier to control the size with out resourting to math.
just my solution. |
|
|
|
09/05/2002 07:46:12 PM · #16 |
jmsetzler's and jperez1690's techniques are SUPPOSED to yield the same results...
Loss of sharpness often happens when images are re-sampled as pixels are created which are average values of the neighboring pixels. |
|
|
|
09/05/2002 10:58:29 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
jmsetzler's and jperez1690's techniques are SUPPOSED to yield the same results...
Loss of sharpness often happens when images are re-sampled as pixels are created which are average values of the neighboring pixels.
This is more of a problem when resampling UP rather than resampling down. I would never suggest resampling to a larger size...
|
|
|
|
09/05/2002 11:01:04 PM · #18 |
| is resample synon to resize? |
|
|
|
09/05/2002 11:08:57 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
is resample synon to resize?
No...
|
|
|
|
09/06/2002 12:04:34 AM · #20 |
although, if you do it in small steps, photoshop's bicubic interpolation algorithm can actually rival proprietary expensive products like Genuine Fractals
in fact you can even get a photoshop Action (macro) that does it for you .. check it out .. FredMiranda.com FM Stair Interpolation action for Photoshop - interesting link.. I think Patella was saying he manually played around with step interpolation and was pleased with the results, but I haven't seem him around here in a few days ..
In fact, the whole Fred Miranda site is a pretty great resource for web photographers .. :) cheggidout yo
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I would never suggest resampling to a larger size...
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 06:56:15 PM EDT.
