Photoshop Rocks!!

[Mad Dave]

I did my first foray into motorsport photography last weekend, and although I had a few good shots, with nice panning blur, I had no decent ones of the car I really wanted (a friends Mk2 Escort). I had one decidedly average one though:



But with a bit of creative 'shopping, i managed to make it half decent - its still crap in the grand scheme of things, but its now good enough to print out and give to my mate!



Dave

[SDK]

Use the Shadow/Highlight Filter (Image->Adjustments) to bring out the detail in the dark areas.

[dcw@pr]

SDK said:

Use the Shadow/Highlight Filter (Image->Adjustments) to bring out the detail in the dark areas.

Personally I think that would reduce the contrast too much on this photo, plus don't forget that is a new feature only found in photoshop CS!

I would put it through a noise reduction filter, then sharpen it with some sort of edges-only technique, like this

It's a good photo though, and doesn't need too much adjustment.

[Mad Dave]

Thanks guys. Yeah, I don't have Photoshop CS, so I dont have that feature. My mate was over the moon with the shot. I saved the image as a 300DPI TIF and took it down to Fujilabs - £1.80 got me an 8x6 - unfortunately its a bit pixelated up close, but ill just make sure i scan at 1200dpi next time

[simpo two]

Mad Dave said:

Thanks guys. Yeah, I don't have Photoshop CS, so I dont have that feature.

Don't worry, I have PS6 and use the dodge and burn tools to good effect. You'll find them in the toolbar, and you can change brush size and opacity. I've found it's easier to get detail out of seemingly black areas by lightening them, than by trying to do the reverse on bright white. Use it sparingly though, as over-lightened area can look strangely grey with noise.
ALternatively you can select an area (polygonal marquee and magic wand are my usual tools for this) and use Image>adjust>brightness/contrast.

NB Saved or scanned? Me confused!

>> Edited by simpo two on Wednesday 21st July 09:40

[Mad Dave]

errr both!

I scanned it at 300dpi TIF, modified it in PS6 and then saved it to CD as a 300dpi TIF. I then took the CD down to Fuji, stuck it in their scary looking machine and got a reprint done from it.

I tried selecting the bonnet and dropping the brightness but it looked odd, plus I was at work so couldnt spend long on it. Thanks for the tips though

PS do you have your D70 yet mate?

[simpo two]

Mad Dave said:

I scanned it at 300dpi TIF, modified it in PS6 and then saved it to CD as a 300dpi TIF. I then took the CD down to Fuji, stuck it in their scary looking machine and got a reprint done from it.

OK, so it began life as a print? Better to get a reprint from the negative then - one less generation of quality to lose.
Not sure where dpi's and TIFFs come in - I use X x Y pixels and JPG (compression depending on use). I always think of 'dpi' as a printing thing, 'cos with a computer you can print the thing out any size you like, so dots per inch seems suddenly meaningless! Well, to me anyway!

Mad Dave said:

PS do you have your D70 yet mate?

Getting there: I'm up from 23 to 14 in the queue; 3 weeks maybe. A friend is going to the US and could get one for me but not until 4 Sep, doh!

[Mad Dave]

simpo two said:

Mad Dave said: I scanned it at 300dpi TIF, modified it in PS6 and then saved it to CD as a 300dpi TIF. I then took the CD down to Fuji, stuck it in their scary looking machine and got a reprint done from it. OK, so it began life as a print? Better to get a reprint from the negative then - one less generation of quality to lose. Not sure where dpi's and TIFFs come in - I use X x Y pixels and JPG (compression depending on use). I always think of 'dpi' as a printing thing, 'cos with a computer you can print the thing out any size you like, so dots per inch seems suddenly meaningless! Well, to me anyway! Mad Dave said: PS do you have your D70 yet mate? Getting there: I'm up from 23 to 14 in the queue; 3 weeks maybe. A friend is going to the US and could get one for me but not until 4 Sep, doh!

It began life as a print, but as shown by the first image, it was rubbish - i cropped it, added motion blur to the background and added radial blur to the wheels. DPI is a printing thing, but then im a graphic designer so deal with DPI every day of the week - habit i suppose. I just thought that the higher quality the file, the higher quality the print! Ill have to try again with a bigger file!

[simpo two]

Mad Dave said:

It began life as a print, but as shown by the first image, it was rubbish - i cropped it, added motion blur to the background and added radial blur to the wheels... I just thought that the higher quality the file, the higher quality the print!

That's true, but all the dpi in the world can't put in detail that's not there. The highest quality version of the image you have is the film negative. There was a loss of quality when it was printed, just as there was a loss of quality when the print was scanned. I see what you've tried to do as a useful experiment, but for ultimate quality you need to scan the negative (not the print) at hi-res, then make it how you like with PS. (You'll need a film scanner for this and also the appropriate software to turn a negative into a positive) ehasler will know all about this I think!