by damned truths

submit your photo

Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

New answers tagged


Digital cameras do have an ISO rating. In fact most of them have many ISO sensitivities at which they can shoot. There are even third party sites that measure how accurate those sensitivity settings are in a lab. Here, for example, are the results for selected versus actual ISO for three of the top cameras currently on the market. (Click "Measurements-->ISO ...


Can anyone suggest how to literally make an image "retina display"? I think it doesn't depends on the camera. Does their is any software for it? The term 'Retina Display' is usually a reference to the high resolution screens on some apple products. I assume you're referring to serving higher resolution versions of images to such screens due to their ...


You could use python and one of a number of libraries, (such as SciPy/Numpy), to get a measure of the noise in the image as shown in the answer to this Stack Overflow question. Some of the same libraries and also perform image scaling and denoise e.g. SciKit Image has both denoise and scale image functions. You could also take a look at the python ...


In the Save As function the 0-12 quality scale is used, but in the Save For Web function a 0-100 scale is used. That 0-100 scale is probably close to the 1-99 scale specified in the standards. I compared the file sizes from the different settings, using a 21 MP image (so that the metadata is tiny compared to the image data), and came to this approximate ...


Any photo you're never going to use again is taking up "unnecessary" space, and frankly no matter what happens to image processing technologies in the future, you're probably not going to go back and reprocess some low quality photos from 10 years ago. On the other hand, disk space is cheap (unless you're Google, Amazon, etc). Very roughly, my SLR has a ...


There might indeed be technologies (like deconvolution, eg. Focus Magic) that can restore some information from those unsharp images. This will probably improve in the future, so you might regret discarding your larger files. Plus, storage is really cheap nowadays.


Just opening and closing a JPEG file should not trigger a save command (in any program that I know of) and therefore there is no re-compression taking place. For the times that you actually DO hit "save", what happens depends on what changes you've made and how smart the image program in question is. The user CutNGlass has already mentioned an example of ...


I tried this experiment: Stand in one place Turn my iso as low as it will go (200) Set my aperture as wide as possible (f/3.5) Take a picture Step my aperture one smaller, change shutter speed to compensate. Repeat 5 and 6 until I hit the smalles aperture (f/22, in my case) Turn my ISO to 11 as high as it will go (1600 in my case) Work my way back down the ...


From the comments, it seems like this is your problem — you're probably focusing past infinity. See Why do some lenses focus past infinity? Or, if you're not turning the ring all the way and instead relying on the marking, it may just be that the marking isn't precise enough. Try the suggestions at Where to focus when shooting landscapes? instead.

Top 50 recent answers are included