Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: adjustment, saturation, tuning | Themes: Digital Cameras
- 1. How to Fix a Bad Photo
- 2. Brightness and Contrast for Dark Images
- 3. Color Adjustment for Bluer Skies
- 4. Saturation for Dull Images
- 5. Hue Adjustment for Color Correction
- 6. Keeping the Ocean Blue with Color Thumbnails
- 7. Working with the Unbearably Bad Photo–Getting Started
- 8. Working with the Unbearably Bad Photo –Making Progress
- 9. Working with the Unbearably Bad Photo–Fine Tuning
- 10. Some Final Thoughts
- 11. More on this topic
8. Working with the Unbearably Bad Photo –Making Progress
You can use your image editor’s Curves or Levels control to correct this issue. I chose the Levels control in this case, because PhotoImpact’s Levels control allows you to do a quick basic correction by clicking the Stretch button, which automatically adjusts the image’s tonal range so that its histogram reflects a complete range of pixels.
Suddenly, our raccoon appears, with a single click of the Stretch button.
Now that we have something to work with, the next step is a Brightness and Contrast adjustment.
A touch of blurring at this point will help to remove some of the snow, or noise, that’s seen in the image. You could apply a heavy blur or heavy remove noise filter, and remove more of the noise, but this would also remove a great deal of the detail in the photo. When a computer removes noise, it basically has to guess as to what color the noise pixels should have been. Overusing a Remove Noise filter will result in too much computer guesswork and an image that’s lost most of its detail. I adjusted this image using PhotoImpact’s Blur/Average control, on its minimal setting.
- Previous page Working with the Unbearably Bad...
- Next page Working with the Unbearably Bad...
Loved the article. Thanks guys!
how about fixing the photo that was in the cover?
http://media.bestofmicro.com/adjus [...] 8852-2.jpg
bait and switch article ?!?!?!?!
Damn... You didn't fix the photos, you actually RUINED mosto of them...
As a professional VFX artist, I have to say that this article is a little on the juvenile side. Some of the "after" photos contain less information than the "before" photos. You never want to clip information in your photograph, and always want even exposure. Never underestimate a good matte for affecting only certain portions of your image. Furthermore, a good levels adjustment never hurt, and can always add some "punch" to your image.
As a professional VFX artist, I have to say that this article is a little on the juvenile side. Some of the "after" photos contain less information than the "before" photos. You never want to clip information in your photograph, and always want even exposure. Never underestimate a good matte for affecting only certain portions of your image. Furthermore, a good levels adjustment never hurt, and can always add some "punch" to your image.
I dont think this article was written for the professional VFX artist. It was written for the average consumer who barely knows how to take and edit pictures, let alone correctly. A mix of both worlds.
The article text provides a reasonable introduction to basic photo editing, but the "fixed" photos are perfect examples of what happens when a beginner goes way, way overboard. It's too bad because the miserable "after" photos significantly undermine the credibility of the article.
Why do people insist a bluer sky or greener trees make a better picture? Isn't the point of photography to capture what actually is, not whimsically change it to what you want it to be? Sure I understand if you underexposed the photo, or your white balance is off or whatever, but shouldn't the goal generally be what the subject actually looked like?
good stuff. Now to see if this works in gimp.
This reminds me of the millions upon millions of teenage girls who see a picture of themselves and say, "Oh noes!!! ACNE!" *cries for hours and then suddenly has epiphany* "WAIT! I've GOT IT! I'll just crank up the brightness and make the picture black&white! THANK YOU COMPUTER!"
It's a shame that the raccoon now looks like it is hovering.
This reminds me of the millions upon millions of teenage girls who see a picture of themselves and say, "Oh noes!!! ACNE!" *cries for hours and then suddenly has epiphany* "WAIT! I've GOT IT! I'll just crank up the brightness and make the picture black&white! THANK YOU COMPUTER!"
Black and White hides zits? That IS an epiphany.
I enjoyed the article.
I can't help but agree with most guys... the raccoon looks like it's hovering, the sea looks like mouth wash, the waterfall trees look like plastic, and the desert highway looks boring and cold.
Anyone that has actually been in a tropical island will tell you that the waters ARE emerald green, and there's no hint of pollution. Also, clouds at sunset tend to be yellow, then orange, then even purple! Turn them all white, why don't you!
On the other hand... if you keep giving people such advice that will make all photographs boring and amateurish, that will really deify us photographers...
picasa ftw
It's free, very easy to use and works very well for the sort of basic image editing you covered above. Not that it completely removes the need for photo impact. I got the originals of some professionally taken family photo's that were blury - needed the full power of the more advanced PI sharpening tool to sort that out. Then used picasa to fix colour, contrast and it's diffuse glow tool to get the right effect. Wife was so impressed she had me get a 24 inch print of one of the pictures
thanks for your sharing !very nice !
I like to think that the overuse of effects was to really highlight what each one does. Subtle is better for real use but for theory you want the effects to show. As a complete beginner to this stuff it's good to get a basic intro to some features that would scare most happy snappers. Good article.