If the dimensions of the image are multiples of 8 (or 16 if chroma subsampling is used) then the rotations are lossless. Otherwise it is not possible to rotate the image without recomputing the blocks i.e. recompressing the image, which is lossy.
The reason for this is that jpeg images are broken up into a series of 8x8 or 16x16 blocks which are compressed ...
Certainly the biggest factor is the dynamic range processing. The room is so bright, and shares the same color temperature as the outdoors daylight lighting. Yet the shadows in the balcony and near the glass door, which are closer to the light source, are the darkest parts of the scene.
Also, one "fakeness" indicator that your mind might not have caught, ...
Why are hardware-based manipulations, like black and white photography (traditionally using black-and-white film), long exposure, etc., which also result in an "unnatural" image, acceptable while software-based manipulation (like HDR) is frowned upon by the photography community?
Differences from human perception that are due to limitations of the medium ...
I would like to add my technique!
Scan the photo once as usual.
Rotate the photo 180% on the scanner and scan again.
In Photoshop, un-rotate the second scan.
Import it as a layer on top of the first scan.
Auto-Align Layers using Photoshop command.
Assign second scan 50% opacity to blend images together.
This technique comes from observing that the ...
Going from negative film to a printed image is a two-step process.
First, the negative is developed — the latent image on the film brought out and then fixed in place. Now you have a piece of translucent film with a negative image on it.
Second, to go to a the final print on paper, you then essentially repeat the process, shining light through the negative ...
If the lighting was asymmetrical and consistent between shots, then the lighting will be flipped as well and this might easily make the shot look simply awful or so awful its funny.
This may not be appropriate for their brand.
Editing is definitely not unethical (making a deceptive photo can be unethical, but it is also easy to deceive in-camera, it's the deceiving part that makes it unethical not the editing)
There are two very different types of photography - there are photos that are intended to show what something really look like (photojournalism, pictures for eBay listings, ...
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 ...
In addition to the points Alex S made, you need to consider why they want RAW. There are several possible reasons:
Bit depth as Alex S said.
JPG suffers from compression artefacts which RAW doesn't. Blown up to exhibtion size these can jump out and ruin a print.
Having the RAW file is often used as a proxy for having taken the photo, as RAWs aren't ...
I would recommend any of the applications from this list at JPEGclub.org, which develops and maintains software for the Independent JPEG Group. They have a free piece of code called jpegtran which can do some basic transformations (like rotation) without re-encoding the image.
Rotating images the "naive" way (rendering to a bitmap, reorienting the bitmap, ...
The textbook method is, as others mentioned, to suppress the texture in frequency space. I will explain how to find the correct filter, that you can basically do manually in ImageJ (freeware java app). When you open the program it is a strip of menu. The parts you need are:
Process-> FFT -> FFT
Process-> FFT -> ...
There are no hard and fast rules in art. You are free to follow your heart. If flipping some of the images assists in the symmetry of the final presentation, then go for it!
Few if any will recognize their image was flipped. After all, they see a flipped image when they shave or put on makeup. Yes, the dressing, shaving, and makeup image in the mirror is ...
Let's look at the last picture.
If you want a black background, you need to be careful not to spill light. It's relatively easy to control in a large studio, it's almost impossible in a small room. You need a background which is far away. You could even shoot outside at night if the weather allows it.
You need some continuous light to show the trajectory. ...
RAW is not (or minimally) processed image data from camera sensor.
JPEG is processed image data.
Typically, raw-files from modern cameras have 12-14-bit per pixel which means up to 16384 values (for more details see Michael Clark's comment). JPEG can have only 256 luminance values per RGB channel. This means that jpeg contains much less data than a ...
If you don't have it, I'd recommend Adobe Lightroom and then use Gimp for the occasional 'advanced' edit. Most of the reasons are already outlined in this question. Photoshop is nice, but its not meant to deal with the huge number of photographs you can do from a real shoot. Its a workflow thing.
I find 90%+ of the basic tweaks I need can be done in ...
The thing that sets off the alarm is the perfectly bright and uniform lighting in the room, especially on its ceiling. The room should be quite dark, since the sun is on the other side of the building (according to the building in the background). You can see through the window (and in the big mirror) that the ceiling of the balcony is more realistically in ...
Alignment of multiple images taken from the same point
If you are not making a panorama, but just aligning an image stack for focus stacking, exposure fusion or HDR, then align_image_stack from Hugin project is one of the simple yet very useful tools. Hugin is a multiplatform collection of tools that is available for Windows, Mac OS, and Linux.
Since the noise is periodic, your best option is to Fourier-transform
the image and filter out the specific spatial frequencies of the noise.
This way you will preserve a lot more detail than with any
I don't know whether Photoshop can do that, but here is an example using
To echo the words of others, I cannot and will not help you here. You are asking for knowledge on how to remove a copyright owner's SIGNATURE from THEIR WORK. Sorry, but that's wrong. If you want a signature-free copy, you should be contacting the owner of the work to see if they will offer you the right to purchase a COPY — however it is up to them whether ...
You can achieve this using flash, gels, and white balance.
Set your WB so that the background (the clouds) has the desired colour tone, this will probably involve a lower WB setting than the one AutoWB would select. (By selecting a WB which is warmer than reality, the image gets colder).
Light your subject with flash, with a warming gel on the flash to get ...
Is it frowned upon? Photography has always made use of whatever technology was available, whether in the camera, the darkroom or, now, the computer.
It's a long time since other forms of art were required to be 'photorealistic'. No need for photography to be either! If you find yourself among people who disagree, work within their rules if you find ...
I think your manager is right, and that this phenomenon is much more widespread than just photos for social media, or even photography in general.
Take a look in supermarkets, and take in the flashy bright colours and stark contrasts brands use to attract your attention. If they get you to look at their product, chances of you buying it shoot up ...
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.
Overexposed areas have a sharp cut-off when the maximum pixel value is reached. You have a completely white area if this happens in all colour channels. There is nothing you can do in post to recover information in those areas.
In contrast, underexposed areas retain information, but when you brighten them, you amplify the noise, too, and with less bits to ...
If you have to ask, then Photoshop is NOT worth the money.
Only if you need Photoshop, will it ever be worth the money. It is expensive because people who use it find that it pays them back easily.
If you do not know what you need, then you do not need Photoshop.
Photoshop is a tool that can help you solve problems and create creative solutions in your ...
If you don't know the crop boundary then you can use Fred Weinhaus's multicrop script (this script also uses Imagemagick). The script also handles different photo sizes and rotated images.
Example (book covers):
Scanned image (input.tiff):
multicrop input.tiff output.tiff
I would suggest backing up three things:
The original RAW files.
Your RAW software's database of adjustments — usually, this is kept as lossless storage of what changes you made.
High-quality (100%-quality JPEG or TIFF, depending on subject matter / detail) of developed images you've put a lot of work into.
#1 keeps the originals. #2 lets you recreate your ...
Edit: I wrote a Gimp script that does the steps below, and another one for Ilmaris answer. Both scripts are available for download on GitHub. The suggested way to go is this one.
I’m answering this right here because I have been searching for a solution for quite some time and found a simple and working one. Let’s get to the result right away:
Create a ...