I Dare You!

by peter_budo

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


As you say, normally the flakes would be nearly invisible, however, the photographer has used a bright flash to illuminate the flakes, so that they are much brighter than the surrounding environment. This means that, even though they are out of focus, the flakes still appear in the image, but as big dots.


This isn't really an answer to your question as asked, but it isn't really just a comment either. The "simulate paper color" option probably isn't going to do nearly what you want. It's a bit heavy-handed, to say the least, and while it can be occasionally useful for perceptual purposes when preparing an image, if you could manage to save it and print it to ...


That's a very big question, and like a lot of very big questions, the answer ultimately comes down to "having an eye for that sort of thing". That's why even though the fundamentals aren't too terribly difficult to come to grips with, people like Amy Dresser are able to make a reasonably good living as assemblage artists in the world of commercial ...


I just discovered that if you crop the image in photoshop you can include all the areas you want... then save as a jpg transport the picture to your desktop. Then just drag and drop your picture in to your document. This will keep edge image areas that were annoyingly cropped out before. Hope that helps. Pauline Neal


The previus answers are verey good. I will just add some "psicological aspects" of the jpg format. If a jpg is well prepared, it looses only about 0.5% information. That is in the vast majority of cases something that the human eye can not see. You need a program to do some analisis and see the diferences (like the analysis Ilmari just did). "Good ...


It's not quite lossless, but you can get pretty close using GIMP (or some other editor with a similar feature) and the following two tricks: First, make sure that the border you're adding is a multiple of 8 pixels wide (and preferably a multiple of 16 pixels). This is important because the JPEG compression algorithm breaks the image into 8×8 pixel ...


Sorry if this is not exactly what you wanted but... It sounds like your adding a white border as an aid for positioning your image when printing. Why not focus on learning the printing interfaces properly and avoid dodgy hacks like this? The other issue this brings up is are you allowing the printing program to resize your 4680x3120 image to fit the correct ...


Although Philip's answer is the best way to go, it is possible to do what you want entirely within the sphere of JPEG. JPEG works by breaking your image up into blocks called Minimum Coding Units (MCUs), typically 16×16 each, and compressing them separately. You can see this in images when you crank the compression level up very high. At more ...


The point to remember here is that you lose quality when saving the photo into a lossy compression format. So long as you save the photo in a lossless format (PSD, TIFF, etc) after adding the border, you won't lose any more data than you've already lost by saving the photo as a JPEG in the first place.


Instead of going for the best Unsharp Mask parameters, why not use something much better and more modern? Usually I like to sharpen my photos in Multi Scale approach. Namely, selecting different sharpening level (Amount in the Unsharp Mask window) for each detail scale (Size). Something like equalizer. I personally use Fixel Detailizer 2 PS since it is ...


You are most likely looking for "Cross-Processing." You can find many plug-ins that should replicate the effect. You can also grab a freebie that should do what you want from "Perfect Effects".


As the other answerers have pointed out, GIMP misses certain features that you can find in photoshop. But then you are not limited to using only GIMP. I use the following free of charge programs: dcraw ImageJ ImageMagick Hugin GIMP dcraw allows you to have full access to your raw files, you can e.g. work with the raw data before any demosaicing is done. ...


Be aware that it's the proportion that is important here, rather than the dimensions. If you crop to 800x600px as you specify, then your image will only print at around 8.5cm across by about 6cm tall if you print at 240ppi resolution. I think it is the ratio of the long edge to the short edge that you need to remember, so 800x600px is a ratio of 4:3. In ...


Your camera takes pictures with 4928×3264px, 800x530 is a severely reduced size, which loses a huge amount of data. For printing, you should aim at ~300dpi, or at least 150dpi for a decent picture. 50/2.54~=19.69, so the full resolution width 4928 would yield about 250dpi, which is certainly ok. an 800x530px picture will come out terribly at this print ...


800×600 pixels is both far too small for printing at 70×50 cm, and also the wrong aspect ratio - 800×600 is a 1.33:1 ratio, but 70×50 is a 1.4:1 ratio. Your D7000 has a native resolution of 4928×3264; from that you can make a 1.4:1 crop of 4570×3264. You should be aiming to use as much of the pixel data you have as possible when printing - attempting to ...


This answer describes the fastest reliable approach I know atm, based on the answer by Ilmari Kanoren. It is semi-automatic; the automatic mask does not work for hard images like the one below because there are no edges in some parts of the drawing. This Gimp script automates steps 3 and 4 (note that Resynthesizer is required), so the workflow is just: ...

Top 50 recent answers are included