Understanding there are many new artists who may not have experience in photo editing, I am offering free editing services. I will require you send the largest size file you have available.
All editing will be completed on a colour calibrated monitor. If yours is not calibrated, colour results will vary. All files returned to you will be in the 8-bit, Adobe 1998 RGB colour profile, which is optimal for uploading to FAA.
Check my galleries for examples on how I edit my own work, and if you like what you see send me a message outlining what you need fixed. Together we’ll come up with a solution.
The only thing I ask is that you please leave feedback here on your experience with my editing.
Jeffrey, you are awesome to help out like this! I saw what you did with the Robin Gibb image (as an example) and I was astonished, frankly. My stuff comes straight from Photoshop so I probably wouldn't need your services, but just wanted to note that people really should take advantage of your generosity and great skills!
Hi Jeffrey, just a question. I just uploaded a painting but ended up putting it in my private gallery. In the uploaded version, the skin tone looks streaky and the upload is showing grey in a lot of the areas. None of this is apparent in the actual painting. ..Is the high resolution camera revealing that which is not apparent to the naked eye? ...and if so, when I edit, what can I do to eliminate this problem or correct it afterwards?
Judy, I would need to see the image in question. Feel free to send a low resolution file for analysis, if you like, or a link to the photo here. Not sure if I can view things in a private gallery thru the link, though.
For others reading this, I'm in the midst of testing out new camera equipment and learning new software, Although I want to do my own editing I reached out to Jeffrey privately for technical advice and he has been a fount of wisdom so far (you're not off the hook yet as I'm sure there will be more questions).
Well done and thank you!
BTW, any input on monitor calibration would be appreciated...can I even calibrate a laptop monitor effectively (it is Hi Def)?
I have a standard laptop and use Huey Pantone colour calibration software. It works like a charm, and once you do get it calibrated you're going to see a world of difference. Along with the new workflow you're learning, your images are going to "pop!"
Hi Jeffrey....again.......I have a question that you might be able to help me with. We all know I'm not a fine photographer. Therefore, I do rely on the settings in my camera.
I'm wondering.......why is there such a difference in the outcome when I use more pixels @14, than at 10mpx ? The difference being......the images look BETTER at 10mpx !!
And all full of noise,etc, at 14. Camera is: Sony Cybershot DSCW-320. You've explained about sensors in these cameras, and I'm thinking, do I learn the intricacies of a better slr , if I can / should obtain one with a guaranteed better sensor. Thanks so much.
Thanks for the offer to help us out. I just hope you have time to do all that work :o) I just would like to know if my work will print good and not blurry like some FAA member found out the HARD way when people return ther work back. Can you see by looking at my website?
There are so many variables that could contribute to what you've described, and without seeing comparison images side-by-side I would be stabbing in the dark.
I'm happy to hear things are working out for you!
To begin with I suspect you're using the kit lens that came with the camera, or equivilant? I pulled one of your images and this is my assessment...
The entire image has digital "noise," which is generally inherent with a) kit lens, b) higher ISO setting, or a combination of both. Until you can afford a better quality lens (i.e. professional grade,) by following these guidelines we may be able to get you overall better picture quality until you can upgrade. Digital noise appears as small dark grains of sand when viewing the high resolution green box on the artwork page.
1. Use the lowest ISO setting your camera will allow. ISO 100 does a wonderful job and is a great place to start until you begin to get more technical experience.
2. Invest in a tripod. You do not need anything fancy, and a $20 tripod from Walmart will work just fine.
3. Always shoot at the highest file available in your camera, preferably "Raw" format. Now, that is suggested if you have a Raw image editor such as Photoshop, or Photoshop Elements. If not, then shoot in the Tiff format. This will ensure you have as the most digital information possible.
I spent a couple minutes with this picture and made slight contrast and colour corrections. The image was kind of washed out, in my opinion. I could spend more time on it, but would need the original file.
It's very generous of Jeffrey to offer to do this but anybody who is selling photos (rather than photos of artworks) really needs to learn to process for themselves. I guess Jeffrey will do basic colour and exposure corrections but a photographer handling his or her own work would probably want to do selective exposure and colour adjustments and other alterations that are part of the artistic process of photography. It usually takes me about half-an-hour to process a single photo and sometimes an hour or more.
Vivian, to avoid noise take care not to under-expose your pictures. If they are too dark and you have to brighten them up when you process them you are likely to create noise. High ISO also creates noise in dark areas. As long as the exposure is OK - i.e. the right amount of light is hitting the sensor - I don't think the type of lens would create noise, though a cheap one might cause other problems.
Judy - is the streakiness a result of light reflecting off brushstrokes, where the surface of the painting is not perfectly flat? If so the cure is either to adjust the angle of the light so it doesn't reflect into the camera or to kill the reflection with a polarising filter.
noise all depends on the sensor, every sony i've seen push the pixels but push the noise. the bigger the sensor the more light to it, the less the noise. if the camera has a raw setting use that. however this trick works well with both, always try to OVEREXPOSE the scene, +2/3 - +1 brighter. then darken the scene down a bit later on. more data is captured in the light than there is in the dark. when you darken it the noise will vanish. often when i have a +2 image that's too bright for anything else, i darken it down and control the noise in the rest of the scene. i've cleaned images with iso's taken at 12,800 and the image looks very clean.
however that method may introduce blur if you hand hold it, and it's not good for certain brighter colors. a jpg will only capture so much detail, so +1 might be too much for it. and it won't work if the exposure range is too great, like shadows under a table with a bright window in the back.
you can also use a fill flash as long as it's not pointed right at the subject but either bounced, or diffused. a cute trick for macros - get a tissue (clean), wad it up loosely, and hold it in front of your camera's flash (pocket camera), the flash will lighten the area but not be overly harsh. but it's hard to hold onto. i've used this in a pinch and it does work.
If you are having trouble with exposure it is worth bracketing - plus half a stop, normal and minus half a stop (or two-thirds or a whole stop, depending on what you find works best for you). That way, if the normal exposure is too dark or too bright you have a fair chance of one of the others being good.
Remember that the camera's light meter assumes that whatever it is metering is of average brightness. If your subject is darker than the average in the scene and you want to bring out the detail in it you need to compensate by forcing the camera to let a bit more light in.
For subjects that are dimly lit or brightly lit in an otherwise normal scene you want to use spot metering, so the meter concentrates on how bright the subject is and ignores the wider scene, while if the subject is normally illuminated in a normally lit area matrix metering (or whatever they call it for your camera) works best.
Paul, I think the streakiness is actually the camera's magnification of reality. Camera's in high resolution settings are magnifying reality and actually revealing that which is not apparent to the naked eye. It can be very unforgiving. When it comes to photo editing I suppose you have to be very careful not to alter the image too much from its original state. You can be much more creative when you are editing a regular photo. If I were not trying to sell the original, it would be easier to correct the problem. I photograph the painting outdoors on a sunny day, with a tripod in the shade. I use the 12 Meg resolution, the highest. There are so many variables...the time of day, the angle of the light, how sunny it is etc.. I will try to rephotograph it again on different settings...If that doesn't work, I will get out the paints and consider it another WIP! Thanks for listening. I had uploaded in Jeffrey's discussion, but deleted it because it is a little too "in your face"! kinda image.!
I have a general question regarding 'improving' images............does 'improving' them thereby mean the image is creditable to two photographers therefore? It's not really unlike an artist using a photo, then transforming it to their own design - if from their own photo, we know that's ok, of course.......called 'enhancement'.
What does one call their photo enhanced by another person......just wondering.
Thank you , Jeffrey, probably all mine need fixing, well I know it..............perhaps, but for the moment, I'll pass your kind offer.
I wonder if others have thoughts about the conumdrum of getting fixes from another who takes no credit.
@Donna, so, you mean, you agree with me, but it's off-topic here? OK........to me it's a matter of principle to declare authorship/enhancement, by anyone....but not related to this topic/thread?.........fair enough. Carry on. Nothing personal about this, no matter who they are, I assure you.
EDIT........RATHER than another post, I doubt there's anything further to say, and, am quite happy to 'carry on', as I said.....no replies here or anywhere necessary, cannot imagine why this discourse aroused consternation. But - no more from me...................
Viv - Let's be clear here - what I agreed with is your last statement: "Simple, to me anyway....if your art is enhanced, say so"
Let me repeat myself: "Vivian - I agree - it is up to the artist/photog to state whether their work was enhanced by someone else - so don't make it an issue for those who offer to enhance- no matter who they are :)"
Your principle to declare authorship/enhancement is on the artist/photog who exhibits their work for sale - NOT the person who enhances it per their request.
Look at my painting edited by the generous Jeff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If I could place the old version, Jeff's magic could be more vividly realised!! Thank you so very much Jeff...I love the richness of colour, the transparency....my painting is looking even more lively after you have edited that....I was unable to edit the diptych so, uploaded a very small picture of only 250 kb, for the sake of uploading...but now its 16 mb and the full resolution view is just great!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now I could add price mark for the 60 * 43" size... there was a bit confusions in explaining the way I wanted this diptych initially, but as soon as I pointed out, you took the initiative promptly. and even I did not realise the right part was narrower than the left, but by realising it with your expert eye, you spontaneously corrected it..which I really appreciate!!!!! I dont know much about photography, but can only say, you have made my paintings even nicer and more eye catching with your editing Jeff... Thanks for your time and effort....Thank you from the bottom of my heart...I am grateful to you more than I could write in my words..
Jeff - Kudos to you for your generosity, it's good to see someone doing something like this.
For those of you needing a solution and intimidated by high end software like Photoshop, I have been using Irfan View for years, and I love it. Lightweight, small and fast, and free for personal use. Not expensive either if you want to pay for it, which I plan to do when I can afford it.
No I don't work for them and am not affiliated with them in any way, I just like the software very much and often recommend it.
Much less intimidating than high end software, very easy to use, and it does everything I need. I usually do the least editing possible, crop, resize and minor adjustments to brightness or contrast is about it, so Irfan View does a great job. It's also fantastic as just a viewer, with a great full screen option. It opens almost instantly on my laptop, and every picture I've posted on this site was edited using it. I also have a couple of other editing programs, including Adobe Print Shop and Gimp, which I also like pretty well, but I never use them. Google it, I think irfanview.com is their link. Usually I can have a picture ready to post in under 3 minutes. In some cases, under a minute. To crop, adjust contrast and save, takes 2 to 3 minutes at most. I can't find the options to do all that in any other software in 3 minutes...Adobe takes 2 or 3 times as long as Irfan View just to save a file.
Yes, like anything else it takes a bit of a learning curve, but I think it's easier to learn by far, it has fewer editing options, but those it does not have I don't need. If you want to do any serious editing, like freehand cropping out a section and pasting it into another picture, or stitching two together, then more advanced software is the ticket. But for the simple adjustments on an already good shot, it will work great. I've been using it since one of the very early versions, over 10 years ago. I don't think it will handle RAW, but I'm not sure, it might, I shoot JPEG. I also get the plugins, that allows me to view the EXIF data and it has a few other added options, that I rarely need, like CA correction.
It is a little worrying to some people that the person doing the editing will not be remarked on in the description of the piece, as the work, when heavily edited, is now a collaborative piece. Especially when the work is being done for free.
Just throwing this out there. I have no personal opinion on this either way
this is great and I found it at the perfect time, Myself, mydaughter and my significate other are arist on here, when i first joined I was the only one posting,then came family,.Okay several problem'sFirst and formost, my daughter and I merged account with Sott, I have been VERY ILL, and photography and painting are what I do to help keep me going, something comes to mind I paint it, I see a painting I like and it's usually out of my price range I paint it (just LIKE THOSE WHO FAVOR Kincade and other well know arsist) I never paint the painting in it's entirity because I dont want to in fringe on any right's, and I usually do painting's from piece's of unknown arsist or piece's that are very old.Here's the problem. When I first joined I was contacted by three other member's telling me that I needed to protect my picture's by doing certain thing's,I was VERY CONCERD with what i was being told, Scott and I merged our account because of this plus with my illness if something happen's he has all legal right's to my work.Okay so I was told by one member that I needed to compress my work way down,I dont have photoshop or any of those thing's so I was given a sight to go to that would assist me,I went into the resize image as told, took off the restriction as told and made some of my photo's less then half the oringinal size,then resized did photo softing ect, them and Scott and I posted them....Scott's account was closed yesterday and we are accussed of stilling other's work's, IM VERY VERY VERY upset, I went back into my file's and was able to find several piece's that can be (maybe) fixed, but there are several that become so distorted when I try to resize I have spent the night in tear's.One painting I did called the rose is gone forever, the photograph's are all I had left, Can they be fixed I will sign any thing you want to prove it was my work.The other's I can get more picture's of it will take a couple day's and Im not really worried,The only picture's that werent mine were the return from calvery,the photograph's were mine and I was given permission to take them of the orignal art work,and I cleraly stated that in post, if I messed up Im sorry I didnt think it was illegal with having permission.So I wont ask you to fix those, but is there away to fix other's, I also have about 60 photograph's I HAVE DONE, That are MY work , is there away to fix these at all???????? Please get back to me Im devistated at the loss of this work.
Elizabeth - I think you have a good point, if I were asking Jeffrey to unleash his talents on my photos, I'd certainly want to give him credit in my listings. I see that from the same standpoint as being a musician. If I made a recording I'd definitely want to list all the musicians who helped me make it. You see this on professional recordings all the time, almost anyone or group you can think of has used guest musicians or studio musicians, and quite often they list those people in the liner notes. I think the same would be a good idea here.
That's what we did when I got together with a couple of friend in Texas and made a video we placed on youtube. At the end of the video (or somewhere anyway) the videographer, who is also one of the musicians, placed a text with the person's name and what they played, including the guy who ran the sound for us.
It's this simple. If he helps, he deserves credit for it.
it's Bobbie again, they turned back on some of the feture's for me,I do have several picture I love but they need editing, also if you or anyone know's how I can fix my damage picture's please let me know.I would truly mean alot to me ,To lose so much work is heartbreaking. Also If you or anyone see's a new member welcome them, but warn them about discruntled former FAA member's, encouage them to go to member's who have been on here for along time, and have them go to several, I dont blame FAA for what's happened , but I wouldnt want anyone else to feel what I'm feeling right now. Thank's Blessing's Bobbie
Thank's Beth, I will let Scott know. and your right after we were told to resize image low, then resize it large work submission, LESSON LEARNED, To delete so much work still has me torn-up, Im going to be working on the key word's as you suggested the next couple day's.For right now we will only submitte photograph's. there is only one painting ( picture,)Im praying can be saved) It mean's more to me then all my other work and the original painting can't be recoverd and I promised my children I'd never paint another one like it.
Jeff while searching for photoediting on line I came across some free one's, GIMP, CONFUSSING ,I need a instructor for it. Online art editing isnt bad but confussing, Ipiccy is really easy, but does ussing thing's like blimish remover, wrinkle remover, airbrush destort photo's,I cant afford Photoshop right now,and until I know I can atleast sale so work I don't want to invest a huge amount,What are some recomondation's.
Scott - Gimp is intended to be a free open source option for people who can't afford Photoshop. It has a lot of options, very powerful editor, I've used it before but haven't used the new version much.
Irfan View is the other one I mentioned above, http://www.irfanview.com/ is their link. free for personal use and I love it. Easy to use. It's my main editor. I think they probably will have help in their forums, but it's not complicated, so not nearly the learning curve of Photoshop or Gimp. As I said, I don't work for them, I just like the software a lot.
You're such a sweetie Jeffrey. I will keep it in mind.
@ Bobbie ,be careful painting/copying other artist's work and posting it anywhere, it could mean trouble even if you THINK the artist is unknown, because someday they might be known and they have worked really hard to get their and establish their path with their originality. Just saying
has anyone used the Serif Photo Plus software? I was trying to use ulead PhotoImpact for the past couple years but didn't really get along with it very well. Last month I downloaded a scaled-down free version of Serif, and after a couple weeks they sent an email offering an upgrade to the newest version plus a pano-stitching program for half price. couldn't resist that.
so far its user-friendly and easy to learn for crop/straighten and adjusting colours, levels, curves, exposure and whatever else you can think of. I need a lot more time with it though. Just wondering if it is a suitable equivalent to Photoshop for the "basic" editing, or if I should still be planning on investing in Photoshop somewhere down the road.
One question I have with editing, is how a crop & resize affects the final print quality/print size choice ? the program will allow me to crop the picture, and the resize it back to its original pixel size, if I want. I haven't done a lot of test-prints on those results though. Does that process make a subsequent print/enlargement of the resized image blurrier than the original ? Probably part of that depends on the file size/type to start with.
leah, I know that now, most piec's i did were to the best of my knowledge over 20 year' old, and reasearch lead to dead ends on the work, I also change many thing's in each piece I did so not to copy it exact, I was wrong in thinking it was okay and have learend valueable lesson's from it all, plus the piece's that were mine as Beth said were all over the internet,My best guess was tagged on facebook,I do specialize in one area of art I have not seen on here at All, and even though there are many other artist who do the same kind of work each of use have are own style and flair,I just have to figure out the best way to post the work because each one is and orignial one of a kind,and each piece I sale will only have one size ,and only one will be sold, I wont sell cards and such with them. You'll see soon, (I Hope) .I do thank all those who have been helpful on here.And am greatful,Beth most of all has been very kind. So just letting you know I appericate it. Jeff more pic's on way for you to work your magic, still alittle heart brokrn over the other's ,I dont think I will ever see the sky like that again at 49 it was a first. But thank you for trying.
Whenever you crop down in size, only to interpolate back up, you're going to degrade the image. Pixel information needs to be re-added, and depending on what you started with could have a significant impact down the road. I've never used the software you have referenced, but can recommend Photoshop Elements as a suitable and less expensive alternative.
Side note; my family hails from your area (circa 1763,) and if you know any Campbells in/around town there's a good chance we are related.
Its a small world ! I'm not sure if there would be very many Campbell's left in this area. Back then the town was British/English. There were a few skirmishes since then, and now the area is predominantly French. I'm actually from Hamilton, Ontario originally. There were a lot of Campbell's in that area ;)
thanks for the explanation on cropping/resizing. Its very cool and generous of you to offer your services and advice. I'm still concentrating on composition & light with photography. I don't fully understand all the tech details on pixels and resolution yet - I can sometimes see the difference between two images, but don't understand the technicalities of what makes that difference.
This is the first program I have used that allows resizing after a crop - the others just made the picture smaller. I've also never tried to sell before either, so when I was doing things for "personal use only" it didn't matter so much.
the only image I have posted that was significantly cropped is "Stepping Down". I have it on a 22" monitor as wallpaper and it looks okay enlarged there, but that's maybe not a good reference guide ? I will reduce the print sizes for sale on it until I can get a test print at a larger size (as if people are lined up to buy or something ha ha). Most of the other pictures I have posted only have minor cropping or none at all.
At home I can only do 8 X 10 printing. I've discovered that Walmart will do an 11 X 14 for $5, or 12 X 18 enlargement for $11 which is the least expensive option here. I figure it the result looks respectable coming from there, it can only be better from a real printing company. There is a proper photo lab here too, for double the price, which I will use when I really want to be sure. A Photoshop purchase will be a little farther down the road.
I finished the "homework" from my last post, after your very valuable explanation on resizing. All of the offending images have been re-done, but left at their new "normal" size after straightening and adjusting.
While I was working on that project, I came across different FAA discussions and posts from you and others regarding ppi resolution and minimum / maximum requirements for that. All of the images I have in my collection show 72ppi in the original files. There seems to be varied opinions in the forums as to how much resolution is necessary. One person was changing theirs from 72 to 300. Another felt 150 was acceptable. I'm guessing it depends on how large a print a person wants to offer at the end.
The program I'm using allows adjusting the ppi resolution, with or without resizing the photo at the same time. (if the 'resize layers' box is checked off, and the ppi res is doubled, the end result is that the image H X W pixel sizes will be doubled as well.)
Since 72 ppi apparently isn't acceptable for FAA, I chose to sneak up to 150, but without resizing the layers. So if my image started as 2304 X 1728 @ 72 ppi, the revised image was still 2304 X 1728 @ 150 ppi. Was that the right thing to do ? To my eyes, it looks better on the image size preview, and in the FAA full-res preview, but my eyes aren't very well trained yet for fine details like that.
Photo Plus also offers four resampling methods: nearest pixel, bilinear interpolation, bicubic interpolation, and Lanczos 3 Window. I used the latter for the image export to .jpg, only because the help manual said it was to be used when "best quality results are required". I read what the others are for as well, but don't quite understand the "science" behind it all. yet.