Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Other Diversions › Apple and Macintosh › Photography software question
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Photography software question

post #1 of 17
9/5/09 at 3:42am
Thread Starter 
Just convinced a friend of mine who is an avid photographer
to switch from Windows to Mac.

So far, as one would expect, he is very pleased with his new
iMac purchase.

The problem is, he is complaining about the way it handles
photos.

This is based on his description of the situation....

I don't know if he shot on film or digital.  However, he
took his photos to CVS, I suppose to have the photos
put on a CD.  

Some of the photos came out blurry.

He said that if he loads those blurred photos in Picasso
on his Windows computer, Picasso clears them up.

However, he said that iPhoto on his Mac does not.

Anyone know what he is talking about, and at the same
time, recommend software for the Mac that would take
care of his problem? 
Reply
post #2 of 17
9/5/09 at 7:38am
Ron, there is a version of Picasa for the Mac. Has he downloaded it and tried it out?
Reply
post #3 of 17
9/5/09 at 8:45am
I wonder if he isn't taking photos to CVS that are insufficient in resolution for a good print. That would explain things looking sharp on the computer but looking blurry (or pixelated) in the print. Hard to say what's going on in the programs without seeing how he's viewing the images, settings, etc. If it is insufficient resolution for print, a program change will not fix the problem.
Reply
post #4 of 17
9/5/09 at 10:33am
Ron this might be too complex to fix via back and forth on the boards, if you want to have your friend call me I'll try to help him over the phone, 908 461 7181

Sam
Reply
post #5 of 17
9/5/09 at 12:02pm
Thread Starter 
Thanks for that Picassa link.  My friend says it works well. 
Reply
post #6 of 17
9/5/09 at 1:10pm
BTW Ron, if the scans are bad, you can't really make them good through processing.  Your avid photographer friend needs to get better scans.  A good film scan does not need sharpening.
Reply
post #7 of 17
9/10/09 at 9:34am
At a wild guess, it sounds like your friend is taking blurry photos and Picasa is doing edge-sharpening / enhancement to artificially boost its crispness. If so, your friend will be much better with either a better camera, better personal skills or a better processing lab (depending on where the problem lies). But using software to fix "focus" is not normal; certainly nothing my wife or I do, and we're both decent snap-shooters :)

But that's a wild guess. At any rate your friend is happier with Picasa.
Edited by DaveF - 9/12/09 at 11:55am
Reply
post #8 of 17
9/12/09 at 10:52am
My guess is that nobody should expect to get acceptable scans from CVS.  In any case, it is not good practice to need to sharpen scans.  It will NOT make them ok.  It's really no different from excessive edge enhancement on DVDs.
Reply
post #9 of 17
9/12/09 at 12:00pm
Just realized the further oddity of this situation: If your friend is taking photos to CVS and getting a CD of digital prints, he must certainly be shooting film. But if he's shooting digital and going to CVS to get them onto a CD to import into a brand new Mac...that's just insane! (and he needs a quick explanation of how to connect the camera to computer by USB cable.)

And if an "avid photographer" is still shooting film...and going to CVS for developing...it's time to go digital. No "avid" photographer shoots film anymore.

Having moved your friend to a Mac, it's time to move him to digital photography :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein View Post

Just convinced a friend of mine who is an avid photographer
to switch from Windows to Mac.



I don't know if he shot on film or digital.  However, he
took his photos to CVS, I suppose to have the photos
put on a CD. 
Reply
post #10 of 17
9/12/09 at 3:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF View Post

And if an "avid photographer" is still shooting film...and going to CVS for developing...it's time to go digital. No "avid" photographer shoots film anymore.
 


This simply is not true.
Reply
post #11 of 17
9/12/09 at 4:11pm
Anecdotally it is

I'm not in the thick of photography, but the couple of pros,  the couple of serious amateurs, and my wife's entire photography club have long since gone digital. The only film people I know now are grandmas, and even they're being given digital cameras by their kids :)

In any case: anyone who is "avid" but takes their photos to CVS for developing to get digital copies on CD and then routinely post-scan sharpens them in Picasa is not a serious photographer who needs the edge that specialized use of film with high-end lenses will give you. This is a person who will pay for their new digital camera in a few months with the cost savings of the film and developing no longer wasted; and perhaps would benefit even more from an autofocus camera.

(I'm not maligning Ron's friend: but it sounds like they're about 5 years behind the tech-curve and their hobby would benefit dramatically from $200 - $500 spent on a nice non-DSLR camera. And if I may: my wife, an avid hobbyist, loves her Canon 10SI "superzoom" camera. It's a good choice, though not the only good choice, for the enthusiast.)
Reply
post #12 of 17
9/12/09 at 8:31pm
I'll just say simply "Leica".  Yes, the M8 was a great camera and the M9 will convert many more, but there are tons of street photographers who will be shooting with their leicas until you pry them from their cold dead fingers.  And they are HOARDING film and propping up quality developers still.
Reply
post #13 of 17
9/12/09 at 8:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF View Post

No "avid" photographer shoots film anymore.
 


If I weren't interested in maintaining my HTF membership, I would express my true feelings regarding that statement.  However, some other things you said are certainly true.

May I indulge myself just a bit and point out to the annoyingly ignorant by saying that at this point in time, most of the people who are shooting film are the most serious, skilled and dedicated of photographers, not just clueless ignorants (I know, that isn't a real word) who simply don't know "better".  They do it because they DO know better.  That is, the ones who aren't grandmas.  There is an entire galaxy of avid photography far beyond the 35mm snapshooter.

 Now, I'm going to have a strong drink and, once again, bemoan the mindlessness that has taken over a great hobby/profession.

I feel the need to visit Serena Williams' outbreak from earlier tonight.  Sorry Ron for the rant.  I feel like a member of a Photography Forum who sees someone come in raving about Bose.
Reply
post #14 of 17
9/12/09 at 9:04pm
Ok, not "everyone". Just most everyone.

And no reasonable person is going to tell a hobbyist or typical pro to use film. I've got a fair understanding of the differences between film and digital. Good or bad, that's the reality.

And show me a Leica user that's developing photos at CVS and fixing their focus errors with Picasa.
Reply
post #15 of 17
9/12/09 at 11:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF View Post

I've got a fair understanding of the differences between film and digital. Good or bad, that's the reality.

And show me a Leica user that's developing photos at CVS and fixing their focus errors with Picasa.

 

1)  I suspect you have far less understanding than you think you do.
2)  A lot of grossly wrong things are reality.
3)  There is probably one somewhere.  Just because someone owns a Leica doesn't mean they know what they are doing.

I realize the futility in what I am saying.  I'm saying it anyway because I feel there is a need for someone to say it.  As Roger Deacons said in the excellent Doc included with The Man Who Wasn't There, digital is just another sensor.  Photography is still photography, reagardless of the sensor.  Anyone who tells themselves otherwise is foolish.


BTW, I do have a couple clients who, when they want something spectacular, want it shot on film.
Reply
post #16 of 17
9/13/09 at 4:54am
Fine. Not everyone uses film. But for most people, especially the hobbyist, digital is the way to go.

Or would you advise an enthusiast to buy a new film camera?

For Ron's friend, from the tidbits of info, I'd guess these tips would rock their world:
* Buy a decent digital camera (<$500). It will partly pay for itself in savings from not buying / developing film
* Some pointers on getting good focus before taking the picture
* Some pointers on how your "film roll" is no longer 36-exposure, but 360 exposure (or more). Take the same picture 5 times to make sure you got just what you wanted, in focus and well exposed.
* Point on how to connect camera to Mac for photo download into Picasa or iPhoto

Edited by DaveF - 9/13/09 at 9:04am
Reply
post #17 of 17
9/13/09 at 11:22am
Dave, I suspect you know your question is silly.  Going from nobody but grandmothers use film to implying I am saying everyone should use film.  That has run it's course, IMO.


Anyway Ron, if you are listening, maybe your friend should get a 35mm scanner.  I have the feeling the problem is not bad focus, but bad scans, which is what you would get from CVS.  I was just sent one which I will be trying out and is only about $200, so I'll let you know how it does.  Because, amazingly, some of us have photos shot before Digital was even a pipe dream and want to scan them.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Apple and Macintosh
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Other Diversions › Apple and Macintosh › Photography software question