Which One?

[Matt Sayle]

Which one is better??
THe second one has been through CS2
1.

2.

Thanks in advance

Matt
www.matt.mediaobjects.co.uk

 

[macky799]

The second one looks slightly better but think its over sharpened:shrug:

 

[Gary]

hi matt (i recognise your name from somewhere..)

before i can answer the question, were you aiming for an effect? The second one looks a bit like a painting. If thats what you meant to do then i chose number 2. if not then i chose number 1

 

[wookey]

I take it you're trying to make it look like a painting?

If that's the case the second one for me too

 

[Mike Hoyer]

Hmm, first one the bikes look soft to start with. Second looks over sharpened. Sorry!

Where's that, going under the bridge at Oulton Park?

 

[Matt Sayle]

hi matt (i recognise your name from somewhere..)

before i can answer the question, were you aiming for an effect? The second one looks a bit like a painting. If thats what you meant to do then i chose number 2. if not then i chose number 1

Maybe recognise me from pistonheads?
I just wanted the picture to look sharper and more professional.

I take it you're trying to make it look like a painting?

If that's the case the second one for me too

I dont want it looking like painting, just more professional

Hmm, first one the bikes look soft to start with. Second looks over sharpened. Sorry!

Where's that, going under the bridge at Oulton Park?

It certainly is!!
I know the first one is soft and i was trying to make it sharper in the second.

Thanks for your replies Matt

 

[Gary]

I dont want it looking like painting, just more professional

in that case, number 2 hasnt been successful IMHO.

its a good shot, but the photo isnt good quality (if that makes sense).
Is it heavily cropped from a larger original?

 

[Matt Sayle]

in that case, number 2 hasnt been successful IMHO.

its a good shot, but the photo isnt good quality (if that makes sense).
Is it heavily cropped from a larger original?

Its been resized from 3072x2304 to 800x600 forum friendly size.
heres the orginal
http://www.matt.mediaobjects.co.uk/p46123762.html

 

[Gary]

Its been resized from 3072x2304 to 800x600 forum friendly size.
heres the orginal
http://www.matt.mediaobjects.co.uk/p46203809.html

ahh ok, i wasnt sure if it had been cropped out of a larger photo. It seems like the quality of the photo is quite poor. i.e. the cameras quality rather than your skills.
so, to be honest i dont think there is much you can do in post processing to make that photo much better.

is your camera set to the very finest highest quality photo in the settings?

 

[Gary]

OK ignore all that... i can see what the problem is
its hosted on fotopic
fotopic reduces the quality of the photo considerably when you upload it.

do you have somewhere else you can host it? if not e-mail me the original and i'll post it

 

[Matt Sayle]

You have mail.

 

[Gary]

You have mail.

i go back to my original diagnosis
its either the camera or the settings in the camera

is the camera set to max quality? (from the EXIF i can see its a non DSLR kodak)

 

[Matt Sayle]

i go back to my original diagnosis
its either the camera or the settings in the camera

is the camera set to max quality? (from the EXIF i can see its a non DSLR kodak)

yup 7.1 megapixels

 

[Gary]

in that case i think it might just be the camera.

i've played with the photo. its made the photo sharper but more noisey.

 

[a1ex2001]

in that case i think it might just be the camera.

Looking at the Exif in the last image it's a Z710 which gets a bit of a kicking in reviews particularly for noise and general image quality.

So I'd agree with the above and blame the camera, it's a tricky subject in tricky lightining conditions and less than top notch eqipment is going to struggle.