The Problem of Blur

We've all done it. It's too dark, or we're not steady enough or we've left our camera on some odd settings. Now we've got a blurry picture. Our first instinct is probably to erase it and take another try. That's probably not a bad idea. If that's not an option, however, what can be done?

Unfortunately, the current answer is -- not much.

Software Limitations

Current graphics programs, even the several hundred dollar ones, have limited options for sharpening blurred pictures. Common fixes are Sharpen Gaussian Blur and Sharpen Motion Blur. The first attempts to fix 'soft' images and the latter fixes *single direction* motion.

The problem is, of course, that blur motion is more often little curves, wiggles or at the very least - not a uniform speed.

A more sophisticated approach is being looked at here.

Image Limitations

The second problem, is that blur is destructive - meaning that information is overwritten or mangled. Bright objects leave trails that overwhelm other picture elements. Areas of similar brightness muddle together.

Having the picture taken in RAW mode helps, as all the information is saved. That means that there's no 'averaging' of colours or extra noise from lossy compression.

2D vs 3D

When you're fixing a image, you're working with a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional space. If you're only changing the brightness or saturation, this really doesn't matter. Blur, however, is a different sort of problem.

Objects that are closer blur differently than objects that are farther away. More or less depends on the type of movement.

To illustrate, next time you're in a vehicle try two different things. First, turn your head about 30 degrees. Closer objects have barely moved at all in your field of view, but things at a distance have. Next move your head a bit to the right (or left if you drive on that side of the road). The opposite has happened -- nearby objects have 'jumped' and next to no change at long distances.

Applying any type of uniform solution will not work - necessitating sections and/or masking to get the best result.

Bigger than Big

One of the side effects of the megapixel race is very large pictures. Both in terms of file size and image dimensions. It's long past the point of practical use - as I've implied in earlier articles.


A 4x6 print @ 300 dots per inch (normal printing quality) requires an image 1200x1800 pixels. Although "requires" is a bit strong of a word - most printers will upscale an image anywhere close to that without much quality loss. In effect it's more of an upper limit - in that providing an image larger than that result in 'loss' of detail - there's more information than the printer can actually resolve. That's sometimes a good thing, if your 'detail' consists of messy jpg artifacts and ISO noise - stuff you can see at 100% zoom of Point and Shoot camera shots.

A 5x7 print @ 300dpi is 1500x2100

8x10 is 2400x3000

And so on. To a point.

The larger you make a print, the less likely you'll be viewing it from close up. Meaning you can get away with less detail.

Digital displays are even more forgiving.

Facebook pictures are 720 pixels x (up to) 720 (if you make it square, which most people don't) EDIT - Now closer to 1000x1000, but not all that much larger.

An average photoframe is 800x480
Most monitors display a resolution around 1680x1050 - though some as high as 2560x1600 are getting more common. The first of the two monitor sizes is very close to the size of a sharp 4x6 print.

Televisions, although large, really only display 1920x1080 pixels worth of information.


Which brings us, finally, to cameras.

An A3000, which is rated at 10MP (rather on the low end as of the writing of this article) has a number of settings.

They are:

3648x2736
2816x2112
2272x1704
1600x1200
640x480

Or 10, 6, 4, 2 and 0.3 Megapixels respectively -- a Megapixel is the height and width (in pixels) of an image divided by a million (and usually rounded a bit). It doesn't really address Aspect Ratios but it's handy for a rough comparison.

A T2i has a number of settings as well:

5184x3456
3456x2304
2592x1728

Or, according to the camera - 18, 8 and 4.5 megapixels

I'll indulge in a little math at this point - also with pictures if you want to skip the number crunching.

Assuming a 300dpi print, you can divide the above by 300 to get the 'optimal' print size.

A3000
12"x9"
9.4"x7"
7.5"x5.6"
5.3"x4"

(I'll omit the lowest setting, 640x480 is only slightly smaller than the current FB size, and is a decent size for emailing pictures)

To visualize the above

T2i
17.2"x11.5"
11.5"x7.6"
8.6"x5.7"

So, what does this mean? As covered in the last article, storage space isn't really at a premium most of the time. If you have a fairly good idea of what you're going to do with your pictures (and how much will likely be cropped out, or re-sized) you can probably back your camera off *Max* settings though. If nothing else, you'll be able to copy and email your pictures more quickly.

Myself, if it's something in the backyard that isn't moving and I already have quite a few pictures of it, I'll drop down to Medium (8MP) - and probably Normal Quality (previous article) as well. I can still print an 8x10 as long as I use most of the picture. For Facebook, 4x6 prints and general computer viewing - it's more than overkill.

50% File Size - 95% Quality

I've read a few articles on Image Compression. That's where you specify if your camera is taking Superfine, Fine, or Normal quality shots. Different brands (and years) of cameras have different names for this - but it boils down to the same thing.

Most of these articles suggest that, if you have the room, you should *always* set your camera to the highest quality and highest Megapixels. However, most of these articles are at least three years old - which is a very long time ago in terms of technological progression.

Not a lot of them include examples either - which would still be outdated, but at least would give you an idea of what to expect.

Of the few that do give examples, they tend to magnify them to the point where the difference is actually visible (300 or 400%) which doesn't strike me as particularly 'Real World'.

So without further ado....

High Quality above, Lower Quality below.

As you can (probably?) see, the top image is slightly better. The edges of the leaves are sharper, and there is less compression artifacts around the web (which somewhat exaggerated due to motion blur). There is also a bit more dynamic colour range in the top photo. It's also twice(!) the file size.

Is it worth it? This is where most other sites would say 'Yes, if you're going to print it - memory cards are so cheap - go with highest quality'. A few sites will (paradoxically) suggest that you switch to lower quality *when* you start running low on space i.e. when it's already too late. In my mind, having (at least) twice as many pictures for a rather imperceptible change *is* a very good tradeoff - and much better started early.

There's also a psychological advantage to that as well. If you assume that 'Highest Setting' means 'Best Shot', you probably won't take a second picture, even if you probably should. If you have twice as many pictures remaining, it's a lot easier (mentally) to spare the room for a 'Backup Shot' - even if it's the difference between having 2000 pictures remaining or 1000. It's worth noting that some of the pictures were up to 4x smaller on the lower compression mode of the T2i - it varies a lot between cameras and shot content.

When taking the pictures for this article a rather high number 'messed up'. Either they weren't in focus - The A3000 shots (not shown) had half of either pair blurry - so weren't worth putting up. They looked fine on the camera preview. A significant number of the SLR shots had a different area in focus, or motion blur. In not a few shots, the smaller file size shot was noticeably better than the larger. In other words - it was much more likely for *something else* to go wrong, than for compression to mangle the image.

You mileage may vary, especially with an older camera. It's worth looking into though. Memory cards and Hard Drive space *are* relatively plentiful and cheap - but still finite.

Composition Part II - Ignore What I Just Said

Well, not really.

The previous post contains techniques you probably should keep in mind – but more that when you disregard the suggestions, you do so for a reason and/or with panache.


Never in the middle – except...

The case against putting something in the centre falls apart somewhat if the focus is asymmetrical. The more irregular the shape, the less it seems to matter.

Centred, but not dull

If it's a portrait, or some other controlled environment where the background won't add anything to the shot, then having the primary subject(s) off to one edge may make the picture unnecessarily unbalanced.

Might be an idea for a computer desktop picture, but otherwise...

Depending on your camera/lens, the border of a picture may also suffer from distortion (bending of the image), or vignetting (darkening of the image). I almost hesitate to mention this, as it only really happens at the extreme edges.

Most of the Picture?

As with the above, if the subject is interesting enough, you can probably get away with it taking up most of the space.

Conversely, if the background is dull, it's best to be rid as much of it as possible - especially when using a point and shoot camera - as it will likely be almost in focus as well.


There's a few ways you can get these kind of shots to work.

1) Be creative when cropping the shot. People are used to seeing the whole of something. It also helps to remove the (often dull) outer extremities.

You can imagine what the missing elements look like, so including them is superfluous

2) Keep the flash off. Natural light makes things more dynamic. Work with it, not against it.

You won't get shadows like that with the flash on

3) (D)SLR cameras – Selective focus. One of the biggest strengths of these cameras is to have only small portion of your subject showing detail. You keep the colour and shape, but the eye isn't overwhelmed with where to look.

You're drawn to the leading edge - but cropping it to do so would be severe

"Out, damn'd spot!" Dust and Scratch Removal

While the words of Lady Macbeth might be taken somewhat out of context, finding out that treasured photographs (slides or film) have been damaged by age, weather and accidents can be pretty infuriating.

Fortunately though, we live in a time where technology can come to the rescue, sortof. Infrared Scanning can remove dust and scratches automatically though only from semi-transparent original media and it's only a feature on rather expensive scanners. Photo Editing programs usually have a 'Dust and Scratch Removal' filter - but often that ends up as too strong, or not strong enough.

That leaves hours and hours of painstaking manual correction -- or does it?

More recent releases of Photoshop have 'Content Aware' repairing, which does a fairly good job of doing, well, exactly what the name implies. Depending on the exact type and extent of the offending marks, this might be simultaneously overkill (the individual damage points aren't very large) and inadequate (the damage is spread out over the entire photo).

Lots of dust, hair and scratches - everywhere.

As is often the case, there is no *single* solution. Nor is something entirely automated the best way to go. At the same time, unless you only have a handful of photos (and really, how often is that?) you want something that doesn't take too long for each image.

After a *lot* of practice I found a method which strikes a rather comfortable and acceptable balance between time/tediousness and final quality.

It assumes a basic knowledge (and quality) of Photo Editing programs - duplicating layers and creating/using masks - as well as being able to adjust filter settings to produce a desired result. If you are confused over any specific step, please leave a comment, or do a Google Brand Search™ for a more detailed explanation. I'm avoiding specifics here because the exact menus and settings vary a lot from program to program.

1) Start by doing a 'Dust/Scratch Removal' at settings that improve the image somewhat but do not affect the image in undamaged areas.

Scratch Removal on lighter settings removes much of the small stuff, but doesn't touch the bigger damage.

2) Duplicate the lightly repaired layer and do 'Dust/Scratch Removal' again, this time with the goal of removing all the imperfections.

Using the more aggressive settings for dust/scratch removal repairs the picture, but also removes a lot of the detail - even in undamaged locations.

3) Mask the 'over-repaired' layer (Hide all) and selectively reveal it in areas where the spots and scratches are visible. Note the white dots in the mask (far right) in the image below.

Best of both worlds.

Composition - A more interesting photograph

It doesn't take much to pick up a camera, point it at something, and push the shutter button. However, if that's all you're doing, it's usually pretty obvious.

Which isn't to say it's an unforgivable thing. Some subjects are outstanding enough on their own that it's difficult to take a dull picture of them. Or it could be more about capturing the moment than making a work of art. Other times, it's more important *who* is in the picture rather than how (subjectively speaking) 'good' it is.

This usually relegates photography almost exclusively to vacations, specific events and pictures of friends and relatives.

That said, even if that's all you want to do, why not make it a bit more than a simple snapshot?*

*Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are mine, and are only that. If you don't like constructive criticism, you might want to stop reading now. Also, the pictures are also mine, so I'm not tearing down anyone else's work (except by implication).


Rules of Thirds - Simplified

If you take a (potential) picture and divide it into thirds horizontally and vertically, the lines segment the picture into nine pieces. The corners of the centre segment, as well as the 4 dividing lines should be where 'points of interest' are in your photograph.

Or, more succinctly - don't centre stuff.

A rather common 'mistake' in most snapshots is to put the subject as the absolute middle of the picture. While it's a rather good way to make sure said focus is in focus, it's the photographic equivalent of clubbing people over the head saying 'This is what you should be looking at'.

Look at me! I'm in the middle! Look at meeeeeeeeeeee!

The solution is rather simple, as most cameras focus when pressing the shutter down half way. Once focused, continue holding the button down (partially!) and change the direction the camera is pointing - even slightly.

A bit further off centre and the image is less harsh.

Room to Breathe

Another slightly grating habit is to have the subject of the photo take up most of the photo. While this may seem a desirable outcome, there's a few reasons why it isn't:

It's a picture of a flower - and not much else.

-
First - from a practical standpoint - it makes it terribly difficult to recompose the picture later when cropping. Facebook profile pictures are square, 4x6 prints are 2:3 (clearly rectangle), and 8x10 photos are 4:5 (wide squarish :p). 'Fill' any of these and you'll likely have problems. As I've mentioned before.
-
Secondly - from an artistic point of view - a picture that's 75% subject tends to be more than a little busy. Negative space is almost as important to a picture as the actual subject - don't skimp. It's also likely violating the 'rule' above and being entirely centred. Last, but certainly not least, it's missing context - where is this in relation to everything else?
-
Thirdly - from a technical perspective - it really isn't necessary. Cameras take in a *lot* of information. If you're interesting in minuscule detail, like individual eyelashes or the exact weave of clothing, then you might want to fill the frame with your subject - macro photography comes to mind. But otherwise don't be afraid to cram a few more things in.

Under relatively ideal conditions a 12MP (DSLR) camera can take a picture of 50 people at once, leave enough room to show what room they're in, put their names at the bottom AND have enough individual detail to make a passable Facebook portrait for each person in the shot.

Unless you're cropping out a lot of your picture later, or printing at 13x19, you'll lose most of that detail anyway.
-

A little context for the image helps it out a lot.

My personal 'rule' is no more than 1/3 of the picture as the main subject. There's exceptions to that, but that's another post....

Quick Tips

In the interest of having a 'bite-sized' post and a bit of a review/re-link to my earlier posts - here's a bare bones list of tips for Photography and Photoshop. I'll try and list them from simplest to more advanced.

Photography

1. Shoot pictures in bright light. The more light the better, diffused light if possibly (less harsh shadows)
2. Learn the different shooting modes. With the exception of the very inexpensive Point and Shoot cameras, there are ways and reasons to control some things directly
3. Adjust the exposure compensation If you can't shoot in bright light, this does help
   
4. Set the White Balance. Or at least know what else you can do about tinted pictures

Photoshop

1. Sometimes the best fixes are quick Autocorrect is your friend (most of the time)
2. The next best things are automated You just have to know where to find them
   
3. Know what the program can do Part 1 Part 2 With enough time, source pictures and expertise, just about anything is possible
4. Blending options are a quick way to add some pizzazz

Automatic Image Correction - Do you feel lucky?

Well, do ya, punk?

Auto image correction, whether in Picasa (source of the question) or in Photoshop is a quick way to (sometimes) improve your image. Luck doesn't really come into the picture though, as the Undo button can always fix this one-step action.

Fortunately though, it usually does benefit your image, or at the very least, does nothing all that noticeable.

Most of the time it seems to focus on the contrast of the image.

As you can see, the difference between Picasa and Photoshop is minimal. However, the advantage with Photoshop is that you can Fade the result in the case it seems too extreme.

Quite often though, it also tries to remove a colour cast from the photo as well. Often (in my pictures at least) this tend to add quite a lot of blue to the image - often where it really doesn't belong.

In a few cases, typically those shots with a small number of colours, it goes in a very bizarre direction.

UNDO!

Rule of -2/3rds

It's possible you've heard of the Rule of Thirds. It's a guideline for composing photographs so that your focus *isn't* the dead center of the picture. This, however, is not what this post is about.

Instead it's a personal rule of mine to override the camera's Exposure Compensation.

Now when you take a picture the camera decides, based on some other settings I won't go into yet, how bright to make the picture. It adjusts (depending on what mode you're in) the ISO (sensitivity to light) and/or shutter speed and/or amount in focus.

More often than not, I find it's a bit brighter than I'd like. Colours are often washed out, and natural things don't look that real.


Normal Exposure

- 2/3rds Exposure

Now it's a little difficult to tell after the fact what the exposure compensation is, since it doesn't show up in most programs - even the ones that normally show the ISO, shutter speed and all that other fun stuff. It is recorded as 'Exposure Bias' in the EXIF information - check the >Properties of the picture in question (Details tab if you have to click farther).



Normal Exposure

- 1/3rd Exposure

- 2/3rds Exposure (/w Auto Contrast in Picasa)

-1 Exposure (/w Auto Contrast in Picasa)

While this is a personal preference, there is a technical benefit as well. When dealing with digital cameras, it's better to err on the side of too dark. Shorter exposure time means less chance for a blurring. If you're happy with the shutter speed, a negative exposure compensation will allow more of your picture to be in focus. When both of those are fine, it will allow for a lower ISO setting, which means less rainbow speckles in the picture and richer colours overall.

Often if something is dark and you'd like it to remain that way in the picture a lot of negative Exposure Compensation is needed.


-5/3 Exposure

Another benefit is making details of white things visible - and not clipped out beyond the upper range of the camera.

 

Normal Exposure (above) - 4/3rds Exposure (below)

 As with most camera rules, there's times when they should be broken. If you're outside on a bright day, but your subject is under some small shadow it would be worth going to positive exposure compensation. Similarly if your subject is backlit and not showing up properly, this is a quick fix.

Most cameras do have Exposure Compensation. However, you will have to go into the letter modes of the settings (previously linked). Some cameras will show it as a fraction, in steps of 1/3 or 1/2 while others will show a decimal value. Check your manual.

Macro Photography

Definition

Now, technically, macro photography only applies to situations where the subject of the photo is the same size as the image sensor (35mm or smaller) - and takes up the whole frame. This is known as 1:1 magnification.

For the purpose of this article, however, I'll simplify to things the size of a quarter or smaller being the main subject.

Method

Generally speaking, there's two ways to go about taking a macro-type shot.

The first is the more obvious. Get as close as possible and take the shot. Many Point and Shoot cameras have a Macro mode - usually indicated by a 'flower' icon. This tells the camera to focus on things that are closer to the camera, rather than things that are farther away (like mountains - the complimentary symbol).

While this method can produces the largest and sharpest pictures of the subject, there's a few drawbacks. One is that you're likely to create shadow, and that hampers the camera focusing, or at the very least, reduces your depth of field (amount of things in focus).

Normally this wouldn't be a problem, but the DOF is very small at close distances already. Not an issue when things are flat and perpendicular to the camera, but that doesn't always happen. Even things as small as bees and flies might not be in focus from front to back or edge to edge (depending on your angle and if you can get them to cooperate).

Which leads to the other problem - most living things (that you'd be taking macro shots of) don't like people in their space. Even if they aren't bothered, trying to get to as close as you can and still being able to see the screen/subject might be difficult.

Bright lighting will help the first problem - but if you're using a flash, it can be overkill. Bright, noisy lights don't help with the second issue either.


So what's the other option? I'm glad you asked (even if you didn't, you're still reading).

It might seem counter intuitive, but put the zoom to as high as it will go and be prepared to stand back. Your minimum focus distance will be quite large - at 10x zoom about 1m/3 feet. The larger your zoom, the more unlike the first method it will be and the farther you'll have to be from your subject. Which is, given the problems listed above, not always a bad thing.

The drawbacks to this method include a lower image quality overall - but better than you might think, especially in bright sunlight. At higher zoom, depending on camera/lighting, camera shake might be a problem. Your angles are also somewhat limited - it's hard to get directly under something that's closer to the ground than your minimum focus distance.


Equipment
As much as I've love to recommend a DSLR camera with dedicated macro lenses to everyone, it's probably not going to happen. While the price of the camera body is coming down a 50mm macro lens is only barely under $400. Still inexpensive for a lens (comparatively), but it's a one-trick-pony. While you *can* take pictures of larger things, a 50mm prime lens will take in quite a bit more light, be a lot cheaper, lighter and quieter. The 100mm and larger macro lenses give a larger working distance and increase magnification as well, but expect the price to double or quadruple (!). Almost as effective is a 250/300mm zoom at the minimum focus distance as seen below - click for full size.

Above: 250mm lens 1.1m/3.6 feet away
Below: 50mm macro lens ~23cm/0.75 feet away

That said, with the sheer amount of information that any camera today takes in, with time, patience and being in the right place at the right time, you can get a excellent shot with just about any camera.

Those Crazy Letters

Most cameras will let you pick them up and start shooting right away. Set the camera to Auto, indicated by a Square, the word 'Auto' or some other picture (all dependant on camera type, but almost always green) and it will adjust the settings for you. A lot of the time 'right' as well. Which is to say they generally get the shadows dark, but not pitch black, and the whites bright, but not blown out entirely. A good number of things are in focus, and - if it's light enough where you are - not blurry.

Certain times you're in a specific situation. Night Portrait, (Day) Portrait, Beach, Snow, Sports/Action, Landscape... and your camera probably has a settings for that too. Indicated by a semi-descriptive picture and the words on the screen when you go through them. Some really go all out and have a rather lengthy list of custom scenarios. (On a beach, at night, while it's snowing and you're lit by candles being slightly too specific, but they're getting close)

But enough about those. They don't really need an article. P Tv Av M. Or possibly M A S P do.

Picture via Flickr - You'll notice I leave out A-DEP, but so do a lot of cameras

Let's go through them from 'easiest' to 'hardest'.

P - Program
When you'd like a little more control over your camera than is possible with the auto function, start here. It unlocks a lot of things like ISO (sensitivity to light, just like film, higher is more), over- or under- exposing the shot, different file options to save (RAW, if the camera has that feature) and so on. Unless you change anything, however, it does tend to act like Auto - in that it does do a lot of the calculations for you. The difference being, you now have the room to nudge them in a certain direction.

Tv or S - Time Value or Shutter Priority
Next on the list, as it does what it sounds like. This is handy for action shots, or wildlife (children included ;) ) that won't stay still. Set the value to 1/200 second (or more) and you can freeze a lot of things that would otherwise look like a blur. The camera still has the room to adjust the aperture - or how much light comes into the camera. The tradeoff being that the faster you set the camera the less number (or more accurately, less depth) of things end up being in focus. Force it to go extremely fast and you'll notice a very dark picture. Ooops. Learning from mistakes is just as valuable as learning from success.

Av or A - Aperture Value
This is where things get a little odd. All you really need to remember is that the smaller this number is, the less of your image will be in focus. Conversely, setting this number higher will result in a lot more things (or specifically depth) being sharp. As always there's a downside to pushing the extremes. The higher you set this value, the longer the shutter has to stay open. Which can lead to movement blurring or past a certain threshold, less sharpness overall. It is, however, quite handy for extremely closeup shots - as the closer something is to the camera the less 'depth' is actually in focus. More on that in an upcoming article.

M - Manual
While the previous two modes had the camera adjust for the 'missing' value, here everything is up to you. You'll notice that if your camera has an option for over- or under- exposing the shot, it, almost paradoxically, vanishes. This is because everything is under your control - so it will be bright, dark or just right based on your settings -- with no help from the camera. As you might guess, this does make things a little tricky. I would very strongly recommend a few test shots in the other modes first so you'll at least have a starting point. This mode is most often used (at least by myself) when the other two modes overcompensate, or vary the 'missing' value and I want to override that.

Example #1: Taking the first shot in some other mode and forcing the same settings for the following shots - with the intent to stitch them together afterwards. Otherwise you could find a wide variance in exposure or amount of the image that is in focus from image to image.

Example #2: 'Forcing' a larger region of focus AND having a short shutter time - at the expense of image brightness - often used when something is both close to you and moving. This is when you can find the other modes are falling short. If the speed is fast then not enough is in focus OR it leaves the shutter open too long (and a blurry image) when adjusting for the focus alone. While I could also go into Tv/Av and say I want an underexposed image, I wouldn't know by how much. It would be easier to set both the Av to what I want (say 5) and the shutter speed to something useful (1/200s).



Apart from spinning the dial, it does vary quite a bit from camera to camera what buttons change the values in question. Do check your manual. If you've lost it, most camera manufacturers also make a copy available online.

Cream of the Crop: Aspect Ratios and You

4x6? 8x10? 4:3? 16:9? Possibly the last thing on your mind when you're taking a picture. Especially so if you didn't know that these setting can often be changed *before* you even line up the shot.

Let's back up a bit.
What are those numbers? 4x6 is a measurement, in inches, of the smallest (non-wallet sized) printed photograph. It's also a ratio which can be expressed in a few different ways. 4x6 = 2:3 = 8x12 = 12x18. The last two are larger common print sizes. 2:3 is the shorthand for that camera setting - but more on that later.

4:3 you might have heard of. It's the ratio for the 'Full Screen' TVs. It's also the default ratio for a lot of Point and Shoot Cameras. Unfortunately, not much else. You can print an 8x6 - but it's rather difficult to find a frame for it.

Why am I going on about this?
In simplest terms some ratios/sizes can best be described as tall (or wide depending on orientation) - such as 4x6, 5:3 (Widescreen Photoframe) and much more so 16:9 (Widescreen TV).

Others such as 4:3, 8x10 and 8x6 can more aptly described as square-ish.

... And your point is?
As mentioned in the beginning of this post - you can likely set your camera's aspect ratio. Depending on what you're going to do - show them on a 'full screen' TV, widescreen, print 4x6s or 8x10s - it might be worth it to plan ahead. Either by changing the camera's settings and/or composing your shot with the above in mind.

If I don't?
Quite simply, you're going to lose some of your picture.

You'll have to crop it down - making for more work and possibly some tough decisions - OR leave that process up to the software on the Kiosk. There's a good chance you won't notice, if the edges of your picture are 'background' you'll probably have to see a side by side comparison of the print and the preview to even see what's missing. If you're someone who likes to go edge to edge- watch out!

There is a somewhat helpful second option, which I'll refer to as 'Anti-Widescreen'. Since the 'highest' setting of the average point and shoot camera is often tied to the less than ideal 4:3 ratio this name fits. What you can do on most Photolab Kiosks is to 'Zoom Out' a picture - which will *add* white bars to the left and right edges of an otherwise squarish picture to fill out the rest of the 4x6. If you don't like the television 'Widescreen effect' - this probably won't sit well with you either. The purpose, however, is the same - you don't lose any of your picture - you just 'gain' nothingness.

A point and shoot camera set at 4:3 - image cropped (somewhat poorly) down to the ratio needed for a 4x6 print

Camera set to 3:2 ratio - cropped in preparation for enlarging to 8x10 

The software pictured above is Picasa3(.6). A rather handy program for organizing pictures, pre-cropping them and a number of other useful tasks. With the latest version you can even set your own custom cropping ratios. It's also free and a rather small download. Various plugins can be used to help you upload to sites like Facebook.

Out of the shadows....

Every so often I find a 'new' feature in Photoshop. Which is odd - since the feature in question usually isn't new and I've been using the program rather heavily for the better part of 10 years.

The most recent discovery is the Shadow/Highlights adjustment. It became a part of Photoshop in CS(1) - as of writing CS5 is almost due - and is also available in the more recent Elements versions.

While there are many ways to adjust pictures values in this way - brightness/contrast, levels, dodge/burn, exposure - Shadow/Highlights is both easier to use successfully and more dramatic in effect.

Quite simply, it takes the extreme areas of an image (without having to pre-select them) and drags them back to a normalized value. Which is probably best shown with pictures.

Unaltered image:

Shadows 50%

Highlights 50%

Highlights 50% + Shadows 50%

The only slightly confusing bit is that you're reducing the appearance of the said regions - so as shown above 50% Shadows makes the image brighter overall and 100% Shadows is even less 'dark'.

There's also an "Show More Options" version of the toolbar (at least in the full Photoshop) that will let you tweak things even more. Which probably wouldn't be a bad idea - as nice as the defaults are at bringing out 'hidden' detail - they tend to make the pictures more than a little 'flat'.

Original image inside red circles, 50% Shadow outside - Note how the water doesn't change much

More dramatic example - Shadow 100% on the right side of the image

How to Buy a Digital Camera - Part II

Card Type
Most cameras today take SD / SDHC cards. As a result, you have the most choice in card size, manufacturer and the likelihood of multicard deals increases. The HC addition (under the letters SD in the graphic) apply to cards 4GB and higher - these cards will likely not work in pre-2007(ish) cameras.

While they are the most common type - there are definitely exceptions:

Older Sony cameras take Memory Pro Stick Duo cards - same type as the PSP uses. They are more expensive than their SD counterparts and can also be harder to find. Newer Sony cameras take both SD-type and Memory Pro Stick Duo cards - still worth double checking though.

Older Olympus/Fuji cameras take the xD type card which - along with being more rare than either of the cards mentioned above - are also limited to 2GB. To get around this, some Olympus cameras come with an adaptor that takes a MicroSD card and puts it in a xD 'housing'. Newer Olympus/Fuji cameras are using SD though.

Some SLR cameras use the deceptively named Compact Flash card (it's actually the largest in physical size). Again rarity is an issue, though price is generally comparable to a similar capacity SD card. It can also have a speed edge on the SD type cards - but this only a factor if the camera itself isn't the bottleneck.


All of these cards have a rather long lifespan (10k-100k write cycles) and even the smallest commonly available (2GB) hold over 500 (jpg) pictures. As such, it might be tempting to dismiss the above information, get a few cards with the camera and be done with it. Of course, cards do get lost and not all external/internal card readers can accept every type and shape of storage. While memory cards are coming down in price, it's nice not to have to buy a new set of cards when/if you change/upgrade/replace cameras. Go with SDHC compatible.

Features
A lot of devices today go quite a bit beyond simply taking a picture. Often these features have a varying degree of sophistication from model to model. A few of the things you might want to look out for:

Image Stabilization
It is what it sounds like. As covered in a previous post, the feature really helps with indoor shots. Be careful to read how the camera is accomplishing this though - if it mentions 'digital' don't bother.

This is a very common feature of most new point and shoot cameras. In some SLR cameras it is lens based and, as it absence reduces the price by a large margin, is still fairly common to find them without it.

Face Detection
At it's most basic, it determines if there is a person looking at the camera and focuses on them (as opposed to the background). It may also adjust the exposure/white balance and determine if a flash is necessary.

Smile Detection
A rather cool, if somewhat creepy, feature of a camera to detect if someone is smiling - often to a variable threshold - and automatically take the picture.

Blink Detection
Still somewhat more rare than the above, this detects if someone has their eyes closed and either notifies you, or automatically takes a second picture.

Creative Effects
Black and White, Sepia, Fish Eye, Miniature Effect, Selective Colour, Red Eye Reduction and many, many others may be present on an increasing number of devices. Personally I prefer applying these effects after with software as it allows for greater flexibility - and undoing it if it doesn't work. On the other hand it does make picture taking more 'fun' and less workflow if it's on-camera. I wouldn't recommend getting a specific product for any of these features - but if you do have them, at least try them out.

Photomerge

Fortunately, not everything in Photoshop is labour intensive. Some of the coolest stuff is automated.

While some newer cameras have image stitch (panorama mode or another name depending on brand), they are somewhat limited in what they do.

Essentially these lock the cameras setting and let you 'weld' a few pictures together. It can also show you a bit of the previous image to help guide you on how much overlap you need. Also, it doesn't alter the perspective and the fixed camera settings aren't always helpful.

This is where Photoshop (full or elements) comes in. Open the pictures you want to merge and tell it to go to work.

I'm told that not everyone likes the music to this. Tough. Turn it off if you want :p



A couple of things to keep in mind:

1) It will only alter the perspective to about 120º - after that it does a cylindrical mapping - in plain English, straight lines become curved.

2) You *might* want to scale down your pictures first. Most cameras output a very large file and you're asking the computer to load them all into memory, find where they join, match perspective and do brightness/contrast calculations. That's a lot of work, and if it can't do it all, it usually skips the last things in that list or possibly not even match it at all. You can still manually align the pictures and have it more likely to merge that way, but it's best to let the computer do it. The combined file will still be huge and more detail than you need - especially if you do the trick in #4

3)You still need a bit of overlap. The Photoshop help file recommends 25-40%. Having a notable object at the extreme right of a picture, then extreme left on next shot is usually sufficient.

4) Unlike cameras, you aren't limited to horizontal or vertical stitching.

How to Buy a Digital Camera - Part I

Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself. Maybe you don't have a digital camera yet. While this is a rather huge topic, I'll try and distill it to its most basic points.

Price
Likely your first consideration. Most retail (i.e. not used) digital cameras will run somewhere between $100-$300 US/Canadian.

Much less than that and you'll likely run into problems. Very cheap cameras lose the pictures when you take the batteries out. They will be a very small and/or poor quality pictures even if they do save to a memory card. The least expensive won't have an LCD screen to review your snaps.

Sub $100 cameras aren't a bad starting camera for someone quite young - at least till their early teens. Expect it to be outgrown very soon, and more headaches when less money is spent.


Beware of stats. While they might be technically correct, they don't tell the quality of the components.

Below are 100% cropped shots of a new, cheap 9MP camera (top) and a old 6MP camera (used costs as much as the 9MP retail)

Megapixels really only measures the final size of the image. As you can see, a larger number here isn't automatically better. Any (quality) camera 6MP and up will print a passable 8x10.

While double the Megapixels is double the image size, it's still not as noticeable as one would expect.

In the image below, the 6MP is a 4:3 ratio Point and Shoot camera and the larger 12.2MP image represents a 4:6 ratio SLR camera.

If you are able to spend more than $300, there's also reason to be careful. If you are buying a point and shoot camera, you're in danger of being a victim of 'bleeding edge': Technology which is overpriced and not yet perfected. You might want to consider an SLR camera (more on that later).

Size
In terms of dimensions, there is a huge spectrum: between small pocket-sized cameras to large SLR cameras.

While the practical benefits of a small camera are fairly obvious, there's a few things to keep in mind. First, you're paying certain premium for miniaturization. All other factors being equal, you'll pay more for the smaller camera. Second, in most cases, 'all other factors' aren't equal. The smaller the camera, the smaller the sensor size and the less zoom you'll likely get.

The image sensor is what actually digitizes the picture. While it's most often described in megapixels, it's also measured in a very real sense by physical dimensions. SLR cameras (and a few very specific Point and Shoot cameras) have a larger image sensor than most Point and Shoot cameras.

Even if they are both listed at the same Megapixels (which these below aren't, but close), the results are quite different. Canon SX110 (9MP top) vs Canon XSi (12.1 MP). Notice the 'flecks' in the top image, and how the bottom image resolves smaller details

Zoom is a slightly inexact measurement that represents how much a camera can bring a subject 'closer'. It's a relative measurement, since it compares the range to itself - the camera in question might start with a very wide angle, or start where a different camera/lens might end.

In any case, it's a matter of optics - a very small camera cannot magnify as much as a larger camera.

The Case of the Tinted Picture

You're inside. Following the advice of the previous post, you turn on a lot of lights. The lighting *seems* fine, but you take a picture and this happens:

What went wrong?

Remember what I said earlier about cameras 'seeing' light in absolutes? It just happened again.

Fortunately, most cameras have what's called White Balance. Unless you change it, it's also set to 'Auto' - which does a fine job in certain situations - but not the one above obviously.

So how do I fix it?

If you have Photoshop, you can correct the problem somewhat using 'Curves>Auto' but it's really only half way there.

A better option would be to fix the problem within the camera.

Bad News: You can't do anything about the shots you've already taken*.
*Unless you shot in RAW Mode
Good News: It's a better fix than Photoshop.

How?

Take a picture of something that's supposed to be white. That something should also be very close to what you're going to take a picture of. Technically it should be 18% gray, but white is easier to find and it doesn't make a huge amount of difference. You might find it helpful to put the camera in manual focus mode so it doesn't have to try and lock onto anything - it will just take the picture.

Find how to how to set 'Custom White Balance' with your particular camera. Use the picture like the one taken above for calibration.

Take another picture with an actual subject in it. It should now look like this: