Any fix for this?

photolady95 · 06-25-2009, 07:41 PM

Can I fix it, or is it a lost cause?

Nachodog · 06-25-2009, 08:33 PM

I dunno...the ocean is pretty much a lost cause. Better focus on fixing the atmosphere instead.

**Ash** · 06-25-2009, 08:34 PM

Raw images can always be touched up, but image detail is paramount.
Is this the best quality form of the image you have? Is this a compressed JPEG of the original?
There's a lot of JPEG compression pixelation of this image, and loss of details, whether or not it is from the compression...
Not sure how much yield you can get with PP on this one.

photolady95 · 06-25-2009, 08:56 PM

Ash, it's a scanned negative, then compressed as jpg.

Probably not the best I can scan. I don't remember when I scanned it or what the dpi setting was when the scan was done originally. I'll see if I can find that neg again and try this again.

This might be a question I should ask in Post propessing. I never can figure out how much persentage compression I should allow when saving as jpgs. I use 45%.

Nachodog, I have no idea what you meant by this:

Quote:

.the ocean is pretty much a lost cause.

**Ash** · 06-25-2009, 09:07 PM

What nachodog means, and I agree, is that the ocean just cannot be imporved upon no matter what PP is done. Washed out and insufficient detail there.

I realise this is a scanned negative - the JPEG should always be saved at 100% quality IMO to retain all detail - then you don't have to keep scanning the negatives everytime you want to use the image.

photolady95 · 06-25-2009, 09:13 PM

Btw, it's not an ocean, it's Lake Superior.

In the foreground, it looks nice and green and viberant to me.

I use irfanview, and it asks at what percentage I want to compress the image. Irfanview doesn't ask for quality as far as I know.

MrApollinax · 06-25-2009, 09:24 PM

Looking at the sample there might be some things you can do depending on what you are looking to pull out. I ran through a couple things with the posted sample but the image ended up looking like a oil painting because of the pixelation caused by the compression.

photolady95 · 06-25-2009, 09:28 PM

Mr, thanks. I'll load another in a minute.

I went back to irfanview and it does say on compression, I would guess it meant quality because it says "Low or Good" Good being the best I guess.

photolady95 · 06-25-2009, 09:31 PM

I think I'm going to end up rescanning this. But here is one with quality at good:

photolady95 · 06-25-2009, 09:40 PM

How about this instead?

MrApollinax · 06-25-2009, 09:48 PM

What exactly are you trying to fix?

photolady95 · 06-25-2009, 10:19 PM

Make it look like what I saw when I shot it. I think it has a lot to do with the film I used. I don't think it was NPS 160 but I can't remember what else I shot those 10 years ago.

What made it so grainy looking is what I can't figure out.

titrisol · 06-25-2009, 11:42 PM

Get the GIMP then, free and provides the same fucntionality as photoshop for pic retouching

Originally posted by photolady

Btw, it's not an ocean, it's Lake Superior.

In the foreground, it looks nice and green and viberant to me.

I use irfanview, and it asks at what percentage I want to compress the image. Irfanview doesn't ask for quality as far as I know.

photolady95 · 06-26-2009, 12:19 AM

I only use irfanview to jpg photos. I have Photoshop Elements, and on my Vista load, I have PhotoShop 7.

That last posted photo was jpg'd in PhotoShop Elements using Maximum quality.

I don't know if it makes a difference in what I see and what you all see, but my video card is a Nvidia 9400GT and has 1gb of memory on it. Monitor is a Samsung 23" LCD.

MrApollinax · 06-26-2009, 05:47 AM

Here is what I was able to do with the original sample last night. So you should be able to do something with your workflow to do at least a little of what you want.

06-25-2009, 07:41 PM	#1
photolady95 Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: Cruising the forum watching his back Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,712	Any fix for this? Lens: 300mm Camera: K1000 ISO: 160 Shutter Speed: 1/250s Aperture: F2 Can I fix it, or is it a lost cause?

06-26-2009, 05:47 AM	#15
MrApollinax Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Minnesota Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,529	Here is what I was able to do with the original sample last night. So you should be able to do something with your workflow to do at least a little of what you want. Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How do I fix my camera?	JamesReid	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	17	04-11-2010 04:04 PM
Ok, so what is this and how do I fix it?	RickL	Pentax DSLR Discussion	31	05-23-2009 08:27 PM
Can I fix this with PP	MaKettle	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	8	04-29-2009 06:18 AM
A fix idea.	Voe	General Talk	10	02-11-2009 06:29 PM
how to fix my F 50 f/1.7	Bas.K	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	05-15-2008 05:54 AM

06-25-2009, 08:33 PM	#2
Nachodog Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal, Qc Posts: 472	I dunno...the ocean is pretty much a lost cause. Better focus on fixing the atmosphere instead.

06-25-2009, 08:34 PM	#3
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Raw images can always be touched up, but image detail is paramount. Is this the best quality form of the image you have? Is this a compressed JPEG of the original? There's a lot of JPEG compression pixelation of this image, and loss of details, whether or not it is from the compression... Not sure how much yield you can get with PP on this one.

06-25-2009, 08:56 PM	#4
photolady95 Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: Cruising the forum watching his back Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,712 Original Poster	Ash, it's a scanned negative, then compressed as jpg. Probably not the best I can scan. I don't remember when I scanned it or what the dpi setting was when the scan was done originally. I'll see if I can find that neg again and try this again. This might be a question I should ask in Post propessing. I never can figure out how much persentage compression I should allow when saving as jpgs. I use 45%. Nachodog, I have no idea what you meant by this: Quote: .the ocean is pretty much a lost cause.

06-25-2009, 09:07 PM	#5
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	What nachodog means, and I agree, is that the ocean just cannot be imporved upon no matter what PP is done. Washed out and insufficient detail there. I realise this is a scanned negative - the JPEG should always be saved at 100% quality IMO to retain all detail - then you don't have to keep scanning the negatives everytime you want to use the image.

06-25-2009, 09:13 PM	#6
photolady95 Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: Cruising the forum watching his back Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,712 Original Poster	Btw, it's not an ocean, it's Lake Superior. In the foreground, it looks nice and green and viberant to me. I use irfanview, and it asks at what percentage I want to compress the image. Irfanview doesn't ask for quality as far as I know.

06-25-2009, 09:24 PM	#7
MrApollinax Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Minnesota Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,529	Looking at the sample there might be some things you can do depending on what you are looking to pull out. I ran through a couple things with the posted sample but the image ended up looking like a oil painting because of the pixelation caused by the compression.

06-25-2009, 09:28 PM	#8
photolady95 Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: Cruising the forum watching his back Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,712 Original Poster	Mr, thanks. I'll load another in a minute. I went back to irfanview and it does say on compression, I would guess it meant quality because it says "Low or Good" Good being the best I guess.

06-25-2009, 09:31 PM	#9
photolady95 Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: Cruising the forum watching his back Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,712 Original Poster	I think I'm going to end up rescanning this. But here is one with quality at good:

06-25-2009, 09:40 PM	#10
photolady95 Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: Cruising the forum watching his back Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,712 Original Poster	How about this instead?

06-25-2009, 09:48 PM	#11
MrApollinax Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Minnesota Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,529	What exactly are you trying to fix?

06-25-2009, 10:19 PM	#12
photolady95 Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: Cruising the forum watching his back Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,712 Original Poster	Make it look like what I saw when I shot it. I think it has a lot to do with the film I used. I don't think it was NPS 160 but I can't remember what else I shot those 10 years ago. What made it so grainy looking is what I can't figure out.

06-25-2009, 11:42 PM	#13
titrisol Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: In the most populated state... state of denial Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,854	Get the GIMP then, free and provides the same fucntionality as photoshop for pic retouching Originally posted by photolady Btw, it's not an ocean, it's Lake Superior. In the foreground, it looks nice and green and viberant to me. I use irfanview, and it asks at what percentage I want to compress the image. Irfanview doesn't ask for quality as far as I know.

06-26-2009, 12:19 AM	#14
photolady95 Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: Cruising the forum watching his back Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,712 Original Poster	I only use irfanview to jpg photos. I have Photoshop Elements, and on my Vista load, I have PhotoShop 7. That last posted photo was jpg'd in PhotoShop Elements using Maximum quality. I don't know if it makes a difference in what I see and what you all see, but my video card is a Nvidia 9400GT and has 1gb of memory on it. Monitor is a Samsung 23" LCD.