Time to be with your loved ones

Time to be with loved ones

by sat

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

0

Consider using a dedicated stitching package, like Hugin, before editing in Photoshop. Hugin has an autocrop function.


2

You can export the data using exiftool and then write that into the modified picture - this is the easiest way. I can refer you to the man page of exiftool, section "COPYING EXAMPLES". There are many ways to do this actually. One simple way is to create a backup of the original picture (orig.jpg) create a modified version (modif.jpg) and just use: exiftool ...


2

The easiest way to compose it in photoshop is by photographing the lens and flash on a contrasting background (e.g. bright green) and then use the mirror shot as a background. You can clearly see this is photoshopped because there is no reflection of the lenses in the mirror. There is also a depth error on the flash (it looks like it's behind the guy's ...


2

The lenses are most likely hanging from black cotton thread. That would be easy to edit out, if it was even visible at all. In particular, the lens on the left is at about the right angle for being suspended by a loop of thread around its top end; the one on the right looks like it would need two strings to support it. However, having now read Hugo's answer ...


3

It is photoshopped or gimped or whatever. On the lenses you see color fringes which probably come from working with slightly inaccurate masks on the composing.


7

Photoshop has certainly been used somewhere along the line. Either the 'floating' lenses and flashgun were photographed separately in the same lighting conditions and then composited into the main shot, or the photographer used string or fishing line to suspend them somehow and then Photoshopped it out.


0

It was made the same way horizontal - but real - 360° panos are taken. A row of individual images, stitched together with the aid of some stitching tool.


2

First, that's not a 360° panorama, but a 180° one. However, that doesn't change how this was done. This image was made by stiching together several more narrow-angle images. This process is generally called making a panorama. Some camaras have panorama capability built in. You take a few picture in succession and the clever firmware finds the ...


0

Of course you cant convert it to a quality image. All you can do is to retouch the image with best possible colors. It might take a while, but definitely looks better than the existing one.


1

You do not say how you obtained this image at this pixel size or how it was generated. If you know you should say as it has a marked effect on the answer. The answer is "no, because..." but the "because" varies with the above answer. This is NOT noise in the sense that it is usually meant. As presented the 'noisiness' of the image has been caused by ...


0

Well, in general, if the noise distribution was completely unknown, then you would not be able to do too much. Fortunately most of the noises of high ISO are of known types (see this link), and their stochastic process or random distribution is known, and this offers some ways to remove some of the noise. Now, this is pretty much heavy math that you ...


4

This is noise and the rule with photos is the same as most things, crap in, crap out. You can't magically generate information for an image that isn't present in the first place. You can reduce the quality, either through reducing resolution or averaging pixels (which effectively reduces resolution). This averaging tends to make random noise go down ...


1

Whether this is better or not is highly subjective. It definitelly looks blurred compared to original, but we also have to be aware that sharp noise on top of a slightly blurred image makes the latter sharper. This is what I've done: Copied image layer and applied High pass (1.0) on it Inverted the grey layer and then set it to overlay Copied the same ...


4

If you have Photoshop CC, you can essentially use ACR with any image, by choosing Filter Menu > Camera Raw Filter.


0

If you have taken these photos and have them in the raw format, there are a few things you can do. In lightroom/photoshop apply noise remover. It will make a difference. Don't over do it, as it will actually make people look plastic. Convert them to black and white, and play with colour correction and noice removal until clean. if you are not sure of ...


0

"ISO" doesn't ruin anything, noise may. "ISO" is just a nomer for the sensitivity settings of your sensor, and an acronym for the International Standards Organisation. Higher sensitivity settings tend to create more noisy images than those taken at lower settings with the same sensor and under the same conditions but that's as far as it goes. No shot is ...


1

Do you really have to assign blame? Those are the photos you have. You can delete them and forget the fiasco entirely or keep them as a reminder of one or more of the following: High ISO image-noise. Poor performance of the camera at high ISO. Inadequate choice by the photographer to increase ISO instead of something else such as a brighter aperture or ...


0

They look OK on my (calibrated) monitor. Some are a bit noisy (especially the larger-group ones with dark areas in the photo) but certainly not ruined. Such issues as there are probably aren't easily fixable on a JPEG file unfortunately.


2

I would agree they are not bad... They are some things in post that she could do to take them to the next level but before you do anything you need to calibrate all of your monitors. In post for example there are quite a few pictures that I would adjust the brightness (increase) and saturation (lower) of the red, yellow, and orange channels. As far as grain ...


5

These are not bad IMO. The color is a bit over saturated and dark, but I didn't see any objectionable grain on my calibrated display. Remember, if they print these, the effective resolution may not be the same as viewing them full screen on a large display, so what you see in a blown up image may be invisible in the print. If, at the print size, you don't ...


1

it looks to me like you shot direct to jpeg and has high iso NR on, or applied some NR in post and stored in jpeg with too much compression on. Yes, it is caused by noise on the dark areas (black suits look the worst, but you could have avoided the funny texture if you shot raw and didnt do NR and stores in high quality jpegs (80-100%). it would look noisy ...


0

I did a research on youtube and I found this video: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tWSAc03vPe8. I tried to find the whole video which has about an hour duration, but I did not find it. Maybe you can find it. However, if you do some more specific research using similar keywords, you will suit your own expectations in a much better way! There are a lot videos of ...


1

Although the color information loss is clearly not avoidable in this kind of 8-bit transformation, you can have a better behaving image if you accept a bit of a loss in sharpness... I do not know in other programs, but in darktable you can use t he module "dithering": I tried the same trick on a small jpeg image, and this is the result: before: and ...


1

You can try layer via cut instead of copy If you have an image which has a large distance range in it (e.g. close distance shots instead of panoramas) you can imitate the distance function by first duplicating the background and blurring it. After blurring the duplicate, you should add layer mask and change the layer mask to a gradient in the direction of ...


0

First make a duplicate layer and place it above the original layer. Then select the portion you want to blur [On the duplicate layer]. Right click the selected portion and give a 'feather' value of between 15 - 25. Go to Filters > blur > lens blur. Play with the values until satisfied.


5

The image in the preview comes from an embedded JPEG inside the raw file which was generated by the camera, while the image you see when you open the raw file is generated based on the raw data. The raw image data is captured from the camera at a point before the contrast and color settings are applied. Every manufacturer's camera comes with embedded color ...


4

This is a prime example of why it is wise to shoot in RAW. With RAW images, it is a simple matter to bring down the highlights in the exposure and spots like this will mostly disappear. In the case of extreme highlights (even in RAW) or shooting JPEG, there isn't actually any information to replace the white spot with, so you will have to create your ...


2

This can be fixed with the patch tool in Photoshop, or simple cloning if the surrounding areas are similar. The healing brush is also a great tool, but depends more in the brightness of the surrounding pixels and the size of the brush your using to get it to work correctly. Posting a larger un-cropped image would help in this case.


6

There is a method that can yield some good results given good enough original photos. I don't have the original article on hand, but I can describe the method, but it's up to you to find the particular details that you need to get your desired results. Let's start by merging just two images. Load them in a single Photoshop document's layers. It doesn't ...


1

This page explains Error Level Analysis (ELA), which can be used on JPEG images to tell from error levels whether an image has been digitally modified. It's not a precise art, though.



Top 50 recent answers are included