Sony Ericsson / Sony : General : For those who post in the K750 photo thread.
>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
General
> For those who post in the K750 photo thread.
Bookmark topic
I don't manipulate the photos I upload in any way
--
Posted: 2005-09-23 14:45:28
Edit :
Quote
All my pictures are unedited, straight from the phone. I'm currently on R1N.
--
Posted: 2005-09-23 15:30:22
Edit :
Quote
I guess the whole idea behind posting pics from our babies is to show ACTUAL quality, not a manipulated one. So I guess it'd always be better if you guys post your "works of art" raw.
10x in advance
Bob
--
Posted: 2005-09-23 15:31:51
Edit :
Quote
@JN - I'll answer u're Q... although its a bit off topic
The pics taken by the K750i using 1632x1224 (2MP) are between 350 and 450Kb in size. MMS has a limit for the size of photo u can send just as there's a limit also for the size of video u can send, IIRC its 160Kb for the video, not too sure about the photo though. The K700 takes VGA pics (640x480) and the maximum pic size was around 90Kb I think. That's why u didn't have a problem with the K700 but have one with the K750. Hope that clears matters up.
--
Posted: 2005-09-23 15:52:26
Edit :
Quote
No offense, but a trained photograph will alwys be using "digital darkroom" (via photoshop) not to ruin his photos but to expanse their power of evocation.
Such camera brands as Canon use basic/flat picture quality. I mean, they don't load their final pictures taken with camera with in-built filters or unexpensive jpeg treatments, so that the photographer himself may have at his disposal a clear picture to deal with in Photoshop.
When people here add sharpness, it is clearly aiming at removing "natural" qualities from k750/w800, but on the contrary to improve an already excellent picture quality by pushing things a little upward. I personnally always precise in my posts if I do it. Usually, I only add sharpness and resize the pic, that's all. nothing is done in colour saturation or anything else.
--
Posted: 2005-09-23 16:06:10
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-09-23 15:52:26, bondock wrote:
@JN - I'll answer u're Q... although its a bit off topic
The pics taken by the K750i using 1632x1224 (2MP) are between 350 and 450Kb in size. MMS has a limit for the size of photo u can send just as there's a limit also for the size of video u can send, IIRC its 160Kb for the video, not too sure about the photo though. The K700 takes VGA pics (640x480) and the maximum pic size was around 90Kb I think. That's why u didn't have a problem with the K700 but have one with the K750. Hope that clears matters up.
@bondock - H m m m , OK. So, we can consider here that sending pics thru emails can be considered as - MMS, right? Why is it then that I am (can) receiving images (via mail) which has a file size of 500 KB or more taken from their conventional cameras/ digicams
This will depend now on the local network I am using I presume mate. Many thanks!
--
Posted: 2005-09-23 16:25:04
Edit :
Quote
I never use any application after shots taken with my K750i...!
--
Posted: 2005-09-23 22:12:53
Edit :
Quote
While agreeing that posts in this forum should reflect the actual (raw) quality of the pictures taken with the K750, it's beyond doubt that some manipulation will improve the quality of the pics, especially for printing purposes.
I for one use Noiseware Community Edition to eliminate noise, then Paint Shop Pro's One Stop Photoedit to change contrast/colour settings. The end result is dramatic for a 2Mb camera with no optical zoom!!
--
Posted: 2005-09-23 22:34:53
Edit :
Quote
OK then Bobby77, prove it.
Show us the dramatic difference. I dont doubt there will be a difference, but i dont think you can really improve a picture dramatically without removing something that makes the picture look raw.
--
Posted: 2005-09-23 22:53:03
Edit :
Quote
noice reduction is legitimate (providing it is stated). So is contrast correction, and also colour correction, since the auto white balance is so poor in certain conditions.
The above edits only correct the camera for it's inherent flaws, and also rely on the photographer (image editor) being true to the original picture and not trying to enhance features of the photo beyond reality, for example making greens look more green than they were in real life.
In my view, photography can have two broad functions:
1. To record scenery/events as they occur - any manipulation that "corrects" the original image to faithfully represent the subject is legitimate (for example restoring grass to green that has been made blueish by a poor automatic whitebalance). Afterall, correcting for exposure and colour is common place in film processing.
and
2. As a freestyle art form, where there is an obvious and stated departure from "realism", in which case all bet's are off and you can do what you like.
--
Posted: 2005-09-24 03:05:50
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
