pixilation/fuzziness

[kam007]

Hey Everyone,


I was wondering if anyone could give me some advice as why this picture I took looks fuzzy/pixilated. I didn't mess with the sharpness after downloading the pictures to my computer. Could it be that I have sharpness all the way to the max it goes on my camera?Is there anything that I should know about (image quality wise)? I am still unfamiliar with a lot of features on my Canon 50D, and I've had the thing since last October!


The lens I used to take this photo: 70-300mm DO IS USM telephoto zoom lens


Thanks for your help/critizism, much appretiated![img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.29.27.wildlife/Mountain-Goat-2-_2D00_-67-_5B00_X_5D00_.jpg[/img]

[Wes]

It really doesn't look that bad. The EXIF is 1/800, F\9 but it doesn't say what the ISO was. I looked at in DPP at 200% and it didn't look pixilated at all. I think what you are seeing is the enviromental haze in the background. You don't say if this was taking in RAW and converted or in JPEG. If in JPEG then you need to check your in camera settings. When I shoot JPEG I shoot in standard with sharpness set to 7 and contrast to 2 and everything else at 0. I rarelly shoot JPEG though unless I am just fooling around. I find it much eaiser to shot RAW then convert in DPP.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

Hi kam, I can't tell you much by looking at the resized image you have here.

[kam007]

Hi Wes,


My appologies for not being specific in the post. I have been shooting RAW for this past summer, I actually didn't even know about it until the end of May what RAW was. I used to shoot JPEG, but then figured out that RAW had better image quality (well at least I think).


Perhaps it has something to do with my screen (anti-glare) or maybe when it is compressed down. When adding this photo on Facebook, one of my friends had mentioned that it uploaded fuzzy, and I could see a little bit that it had, but mostly when I blew the picture up to screen size.


This photo was originally RAW and then converted into a JPEG. I keep forgetting (I use Picasa 3) that I need to save the copy as an extra, not to convert the RAW to a JPEG, then I won't have that original image incase I ever want to edit it again.


When I upload pictures on Picasa, the RAW ones "seem" fuzzy or pixilated (this is with the picture blown up to full screen size). When taking a picture of a person for example, their just seems to be pixilation that you can see on the skin and such. Maybe I am just doing some uploading or editing wrong. Perhaps it is the mode I take pictures, which is P. For wildlife photography, should I be taking pictures in Av? Any recommendations? much appretiated.

[kam007]

Sinh -


I would need to upload the original size or something? I did resize it, but I don't know much about what that does. Sorry, I is a beginner :P

[canoli]

Looks like a really nice shot to me - don't see any "fuzziness" except for the haze that was already mentioned. Sure it could be sharper, but you may be able to pull more contrast in photoshop or another image-editing app.


The only thing I'd do different composition-wise is not cut off his feet.


Nice shot otherwise - looks like some rough country around there!

[kam007]

canoli -


thanks for your input! I should also have mentioned that I don't crop any of my pictures. I know how to crop pictures, but I just don't know what works and what doesn't. It was unfortunate that I took this picture without getting the hooves, but oh well, maybe next time (if I ever get this close to a mt. goat again!).


Do you recommend photoshop v.s. Picasa? When I got my camera it came with a couple of CD's, one in particular that you could sharpen, mess with contrast, etc. It seems that Picasa only lets you sharpen the corners of the photo, not the actual main picture, which is kind of unfortunate I think. I've actually never used photoshop before, so I don't know if the photo editing is much better than Picasa (free download off the internet). I might have to invest in a good photo editing program soon, but I don't know what the "pro's" use, all I hear now adays is photoshop, but looking online there are other programs that insist that they are ultimate or really good.


Thanks.


Kam

[canoli]

Do you recommend photoshop v.s. Picasa?

Well those two apps represent the extremes of what's out there in image-editing programs. Picassa is free, PS costs about $900*. You can learn Picassa in a day; Photoshop's learning curve is steep. You can go years without exploring all its capabilities.


Personally I love Photoshop. But Photoshop, or even Photoshop Elements (a scaled-down version of Photoshop for under $100) are not required to get good results from your digital captures. It really depends how involved you want to get, what your eye tells you is acceptable. Picassa is perfect for churning out web photos and small prints; you'll probably want something more robust if you plan to print large (8x10 and up) and/or sell your pictures.


An example - your mountain goat shot. You could almost certainly pull more contrast out of that image in Photoshop or PS Elements (contrast = sharpening, basically). The sharpening algorithms (and all the other functions) in the free apps aren't as refined and developed. One exception is GIMP; from what I hear it's a sophisticated program offering much of the same functionality as Photoshop.


My advice would be - decide how much you enjoy working at your computer and think through how much time you can devote to learning a comprehensive program. Don't let the learning curve scare you; with a few video tutorials under your belt (for free, all over the web) you'll be doing good work from day one. But it will take awhile to understand how to get the most from the program.


Also, realize some things can only be done inside programs that use channels and layers - compositing images for instance. You need layers to blend images together with any degree of control. Of the free apps, I'm pretty sure only GIMP works in layers. Channel masking, preparing images for CMYK printing, applying innumerable special effects (limited only by your imagination) - the list is endless of what the "professional" apps offer. If any of that interests you, you'll need Photoshop or a program like it.


Remember there's no right answer, only what's right for you. The limitations in the free applications may not ever bother you. And also remember that every app out there offers a trial period, where you download and install the program and get to use it for free, generally for 30 days with full functionality.


Good luck! If you find yourself lusting after PS, make sure you check out their education pricing requirements before you pay full price.


* Adobe offers really generous student discounts; you'll pay less than half of the regular price. And you don't necessarily need to be a full-time college student either - a lot of continuing education and even some day seminars will allow you to qualify. You get the full program too, not some limited-function, "academic" version.

[Vlad Xp]

Back to the original issue with fuzzyness or pixelation. My EXIF viewer says that the ISO was set to 3200 on this shot. Your other bird pictures were shot with ISO around 100. Unfortunately, since I can't see your "original" size image, or at least a 100% crop sample, it's hard to say what exactly is wrong, but I tend to think that it's the noise issue caused by a high ISO selection. You mentioned that you used the "P" mode on the camera. If I recall correctly, in that mode, the camera picks an ISO for you.