How to fix too-dark JPGs .. .
Nooby
disk -- after we paid a pretty hefty sum for our wedding order. The
files are JPGs. It's sure nice having them, but unfortunately they all
print dark when we have them printed. We tried different places too.
All too dark.
I can lighten them in Irfanview though. The Brightness control and the
Gamma correction control both make the picture lighter. But when I do
that, the shadow areas all turn grey.
I can fix the grey shadow areas by cranking up the contrast. But when
I do that, the faces all take on a hard look, and the shadow areas
still don't look right, even if they are darker. It looks like the
contrast is all going into the lighter areas.
I don't mind doing some more experiments, but it is starting to take
some time, and it is getting kind of boring going back and forth to
the photo place. So I would like to get some pointers for how to fix
dark JPGs without getting the tones all bad.
I am just a newby when it comes to picture editing. I use Irfanview
and have played a bit with Picasa. I also have a copy of Elements but
have never used it. A friend has Photoshop but I hope that won't be
necessary.
Nooby
Dave Cohen
Well, although it's counter intuitive, brightness/contrast, as you've
found out, it has it's limitations. I would have thought you would have
had better luck with gamma.
Can you not get your friend take a look and show you how to fix using
what you have in your copy of elements. Hopefully, highlight/shadow or
levels might be likely candidates.
Dave Cohen
Keith nuttle
If you have a later version of Irfanview, (I am not sure what version it
appeared), there is an auto correct feature. I have used it successfully
to correct pictures that were to dark. It also does a good job of
restoring pictures with some fading.
It is in Images --> Auto Adjust color
If the auto adjust does not do exactly what you want a slight gamma
correction may take care of the problem.
If you do not have Irfanview version 4.2.3, you should upgrade. Unlike
previous version the plugins are 4.2.2
Rather that try to adjust the picture in Irfanview you may tried to
adjust the printer gamma values.
Caesar Romano
wrote Re Re: How to fix too-dark JPGs .. .:
>In message news:glvqph$thr$1...@news.motzarella.org, Dave Cohen
><us...@example.net> said:
>
>> it has it's limitations.
>
>Its. No apostrophe. Do you say hi's and her's? No.
No? How do you know "no". Perhaps he does say "hi's" and "her's"; in
which case "It's" would be consistent. Wrong, but consistent.
Having taught logic and law for so many years at the 5-Minute
University you should know that. But, perhaps we are all getting old
and forgetful.
Floyd L. Davidson
>Our wedding photographer gave us copies of all our wedding photos on
>disk -- after we paid a pretty hefty sum for our wedding order. The
>files are JPGs. It's sure nice having them, but unfortunately they all
>print dark when we have them printed. We tried different places too.
>All too dark.
If you paid a "pretty hefty sum", don't you think it is
reasonable to expect pretty hefty *quality*, such as
correct exposure?
Take the disk back and ask them to replace it with one
providing correctly edited images.
What you are running into is the inherent limitation to
editing a JPEG image; and if the photographer did his
work right in the first place there will be raw data
files, which can easily be edited to provide JPEG images
with correct exposure. Of course it is also possible
that they shot it all JPEG straight from the camera...
but even then they should be responsible for doing the
required editing, not you. And of course if the product
is that bad, you should not be charged the usual full
price.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Nooby
I've got version 4.2, and it does have the "Auto adjust color"
feature. I find it also leaves me with shadows that look "smoky", not
black, and shiny looking faces (harsh features).
Nooby
Nooby
Well, getting the JPGs was not actually part of the original deal. It
was a freeby. I don't have any right to complain.
He delivered on what was agreed. Excellent pictures, great albums.
Quality was excellent.
So there is obviously nothing wrong with the original files.
But the JPG files print dark and the color is not quite right. I just
assumed the JPGs could be fixed with a couple of adjustments. That's
what editing SW is for, right?
Nooby
Pete D
"Nooby" <No...@Spamavoider.com> wrote in message
news:fn27o4d1uuae9a1hk...@4ax.com...
How big are the actually jpeg's? If they are fairly small then they are not
meant for printing, just for showing on your PC.
Nooby
Irfanview reports they are 1966 x 1310 x 24 BPP, and all expand to
7.37 meg. The JPGs vary but are around 1200-1700 KB.
Nooby
cbj...@bellsouth.net
highlights, shot both raw and jpeg. He then processed the raw for the
photos and albums, but gave you the underexposed jpegs. It will take
some skill and good software to manipulate the jpeg to get a good
printable result. If your friend has photoshop is willing to try to do
the correction, that will tell you if it is possible.
Another option if you are willing to learn and experiment is to download
Raw Therapee http://www.rawtherapee.com/ . Be sure to download the
latest release candidate! Raw Therapee is for processing RAW
photographs, but some options work with jpegs. I have used it for some
hard to adjust photos from my wife's P&S. The software is free and
actively being developed, so all it will cost is your time.
Focus
"Nooby" <No...@Spamavoider.com> wrote in message
Hi,
I think I know what the problem is and I'm willing to help you.
Can you send a few, 3 or 4, pictures so I can verify my believes?
Put them online somewhere, mail them to me, what ever you want.
info "by" best-of-photos.com
--
Focus
Nooby
>Sounds to me like he underexposed by about 1 stop to hold the
>highlights, shot both raw and jpeg. He then processed the raw for the
>photos and albums, but gave you the underexposed jpegs. It will take
>some skill and good software to manipulate the jpeg to get a good
>printable result. If your friend has photoshop is willing to try to do
>the correction, that will tell you if it is possible.
>Another option if you are willing to learn and experiment is to download
>Raw Therapee http://www.rawtherapee.com/ . Be sure to download the
>latest release candidate! Raw Therapee is for processing RAW
>photographs, but some options work with jpegs. I have used it for some
>hard to adjust photos from my wife's P&S. The software is free and
>actively being developed, so all it will cost is your time.
Thanks -- I think you are right about them being underexposed. I
noticed that the outdoor shots are actually the right brightness, it's
the indoor ones that are so dark.
I will have a look at Raw Therapee to see what it can do.
Nooby
Pete D
"Savageduck" <savag...@savage.net> wrote in message
news:2009013016581893099-savageduck@savagenet...
> Are they acceptable on your monitor? If so the problem might lie in having
> a properly calibrated and matching monitor/printer profile. This way you
> might get what you see.
>
> Lightroom has a fairly extensive control for recovery, shadows, etc. so if
> you know someone with access to Lightroom (or CS2-4) you might conjure up
> a fix.
>
> Then whether or not providing you a disc of files was part of the deal, I
> am sure for what you actually paid, the photographer should be cooperative
> and gracious enough to provide a set of balanced JPEGs.
> I imagine your photog probably thought you would use the files for web
> display or e-mailing to friends & family, not necessarily producing
> quality prints. For that purpose what he gave you might be adequate.
>
> Good luck,
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck
>
Agree with Lightroom as a great tool to do this.
Glen Barstow
Check out "DCE AutoEnhance" at http://www.mediachance.com/dce/index.html
It sounds like just the thing that you need for someone in your situation.
It reads the EXIF data from each image (if that is still intact in your JPG
Files) and auto adjusts each image differently depending if flash was used
or not. An easy to use bulk-processor with some pretty decent features that
you'll find in no other bulk-processing editor.
I've tested many editors and tweakers in the past. While I no longer use
this software very often, if at all lately, I do keep it handy in case I
ever need some of its unique features, as well as a reminder to tell others
about its benefits. One of those programs you find that you keep in your
bag of tricks, just in case.
Try the demo, see if it'll do what you want.
D.Mac
"Nooby" <No...@Spamavoider.com> wrote in message
news:1so6o4p5loud1q0do...@4ax.com...
What you "paid a hefty sum" for is known as a "shoot & burn" deal. It
probably cost you $500 tops. No self respecting wedding photographer lets
technically poor images past their own PC. It's bad for business. $500
hardly covers the time needed to post process a few hundred images, much
less pay for a "real" photographer to shoot them.
It sounds like you got what you paid for. Crap in crap out.
Seriously mate... To fix them needs some expert work in post processing.
Shoot & burn ankle biters and people silly enough to go to them in the
belief they'll get something for nothing are what keep Professional
Photographers in business. People see the shit you got and head straight for
a Pro for their own wedding.
Take you disc of photos to a *REAL* Professional lab. Pay them a buck a
print (or more) instead of try to get 9¢ prints at the local shopping centre
and you might get back some half way decent prints. I'd think the likely
hood of them being anything but happy snaps are pretty high.
--
Visit my site: D-Mac.info
My photos, Information about trolls
and a little bit of fun too!
John McWilliams
Not me!
<pause>
Ah, what was I saying??
An old tag line of mine follows.....
--
john mcwilliams
In additon to it's, we can have hi's, her's and their's!!!
Help stamp out repetition, gratuitous apostrophe's, and NEEDLESS',
redundant, and WHOLLY UNNECESSARY CAPITALIZATION, **AND**superflous
*EMPHASIS*. And tautological statements which waste space and can be
repetitive or even wordy in and of themselves', thus taking more time to
read, or even think about; it's tedious and enervating.
These are *THE* internet *SCOURGES'*, along with exclamation point's!!!
Dave Cohen
prints which is what he contracted to get.
We don't really know how bad the .jpg images are and how readily they
can be fixed.
Dave Cohen
Paul Furman
Also the sizes you posted are large email/HD TV size, not print size...
OK for 4x5 prints but no larger. It sounds like he burned off this
reduced size set from the original jpegs _then_ processed the raw files
to make prints... maybe this is the result of sending you a preview of
the full unedited set to chose your favorites before he spends the time
adjusting the keepers? It would be more professional to do his own
culling and only show decent looking versions but as you've learned,
making those final adjustments is a lot of work & costs money/time. The
underexposure may have been intentional, to prevent blowing out highlights.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Nooby
wrote:
>Nooby wrote:
>> Thanks -- I think you are right about them being underexposed. I
>> noticed that the outdoor shots are actually the right brightness, it's
>> the indoor ones that are so dark.
>
>Also the sizes you posted are large email/HD TV size, not print size...
>OK for 4x5 prints but no larger. It sounds like he burned off this
>reduced size set from the original jpegs _then_ processed the raw files
>to make prints... maybe this is the result of sending you a preview of
>the full unedited set to chose your favorites before he spends the time
>adjusting the keepers? It would be more professional to do his own
>culling and only show decent looking versions but as you've learned,
>making those final adjustments is a lot of work & costs money/time. The
>underexposure may have been intentional, to prevent blowing out highlights.
Thanks for your opinion about the sizes and print size. A 4x5 would
give me 330 DPI, and that is plenty, no? And a 5x7 would be 260 DPI.
Is there anything wrong with 260 DPI on a 5x7 print?
I don't really know how the photographer prepared the JPGs, I am just
wondering if there is a reasonably simple way to fix the underexposed
ones. This is probably not the first time someone has a dark JPG and
wants to fix it up, right? It has probalby been done before. We are
not breaking fresh technical ground here.
If it takes Photoshop to do the corrections, pls post some
suggestions. Photoshop can do everything, that's what I have heard.
But I dont' want to do everything with Photoshop, all I want to do is
correct a dark JPG. And even a nooby should be able to do that if
given the correct instructions.
Nooby
mianileng
260 pixels on one inch of paper. The dpi depends on the printer's
capabilities and the settings. 260 ppi should be fine.
Nooby
<mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Nooby wrote:
>> Thanks for your opinion about the sizes and print size. A 4x5
>> would
>> give me 330 DPI, and that is plenty, no? And a 5x7 would be 260
>> DPI.
>> Is there anything wrong with 260 DPI on a 5x7 print?
>>
>That's PPI - pixels per inch - not DPI. You'll be printing 330 or
>260 pixels on one inch of paper. The dpi depends on the printer's
>capabilities and the settings. 260 ppi should be fine.
Ah yes, PPI.
Maybe I'll try an 8x10. That would give 164 PPI. Probably willl still
be okay. But first I gotta get the tones right.
Nooby
Focus
"Nooby" <No...@Spamavoider.com> wrote in message
Photoshop is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. In the hands of a
trained/skilled professional there is a lot possible, as you can see in the
links I send you of the old and retouched pictures:
http://best-of-photos.com/Nooby2/
It sounds like you want to drive a BMW that needs a tune up. You found some
tools and now you want to do it yourself. Maybe you need to be a mechanic
for that?
One thought has crossed my mind: maybe the photographer gave you the dark
pictures on purpose. For you to choose which you wanted in print and then
order from him.
Because there's no watermark, you decided you could do it yourself and stiff
him.
Not so unbelievable since you didn't answer my mail, but you are posting
here begging for tips.
--
Focus
Paul Furman
I wouldn't try that with irfanview - photoshop elements or picassa,
almost any program but irfanview not so much. If you could get the irfan
sliders to look as you wish, it's easy to batch a bunch though.
I would use masked adjustment layers in photoshop.
You can google that <g>.
Nooby
Thanks -- the results look interesting -- the proof is in the
printing.
Why all the nasty comments? If you don't trust me, why go to the
trouble of fixing the images? And, I did respond to your email.
It is a foolish pro who would give a customer bad JPGs, with or
without watermarks. Ours didn't do that, he gave us excellent 4x5s in
an album, and then sold us albums and loose prints. After payment, he
gave us the JPGs that we now have.
But the Internet is a nasty place... you just have to judge for
yourself.
Anyway, I didn't ask for fixed up JPGs, I asked how to do it.
But I have a clue now! From surfing the web. It's by screen-blending
layers. As I said, the proof is in the printing. So I will get them
printed.
Thanks for your efforts and demo.
Nooby
Nooby
wrote:
Yes, I have learned that from doing some surfing. Make a dupe layer,
blend them with the screen mode. Now I need to see what the fixed
prints look like.
Nooby
Focus
"Nooby" <No...@Spamavoider.com> wrote in message
Ah, I was just ventilating some thoughts. I just thought it was strange the
photographer gave you these bad jpg's, but did manage to print normal
pictures. So maybe he didn't want you to print them, otherwise you could ask
for the same pictures in raw format, right?
> It is a foolish pro who would give a customer bad JPGs, with or
> without watermarks. Ours didn't do that, he gave us excellent 4x5s in
> an album, and then sold us albums and loose prints. After payment, he
> gave us the JPGs that we now have.
Maybe he didn't tell you so, but was silently hoping that you would want to
have them in print?
> But the Internet is a nasty place... you just have to judge for
> yourself.
>
> Anyway, I didn't ask for fixed up JPGs, I asked how to do it.
>
> But I have a clue now! From surfing the web. It's by screen-blending
> layers. As I said, the proof is in the printing. So I will get them
> printed.
I wish you good luck, but that's not at all the way I went about it.
> Thanks for your efforts and demo.
You're welcome.
--
Focus
Nooby
question.)
In Photoshop, create a duplicate layer and blend them using the screen
property. This was not my idea, I found it on the Web. See
http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/photoshop/ht/apsunderexposed.htm
I printed the results and they are excellent. Color and tone are
great.
Actually, it turns out my friend doesn't have Photoshop like I said,
he has Paint Shop Pro. Tried it in PSP and works just like expected.
It is not hard. A newbie can do it in 2 minutes.
Wow, this web site saved me a 3 month Photoshop course! Or
alternatively it saved me 3 months of trial and error with different
photo editing software.
So thanks to you all for the companionship and discussion, and for the
arguments and even a bit of suspicion -- but not for any good advice.
You can now thank ME for finding the info on how to fix dark JPGs...
unless you never have dark JPGs that need fixing. Fat chance, huh? Ha
ha.
Nooby
Nooby
>
>"Nooby" <No...@Spamavoider.com> wrote in message
>news:49j9o459fscf80i1v...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:44:43 -0000, "Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote:
>>
>>>Photoshop is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. In the hands of a
>>>trained/skilled professional there is a lot possible, as you can see in
>>>the
>>>links I send you of the old and retouched pictures:
>>>http://best-of-photos.com/Nooby2/
Haha, skilled and trained professional!! I'm a noob and did it in 2
minutes in PSP.
>> Thanks -- the results look interesting -- the proof is in the
>> printing.
>>
>> Why all the nasty comments? If you don't trust me, why go to the
>> trouble of fixing the images? And, I did respond to your email.
>
>Ah, I was just ventilating some thoughts. I just thought it was strange the
>photographer gave you these bad jpg's, but did manage to print normal
>pictures. So maybe he didn't want you to print them, otherwise you could ask
>for the same pictures in raw format, right?
IMHO it is a bit pushy to ask for RAW files now, but yes, I will do
that after maybe a year has gone by when he is sure there is no more
business in it for him.
Nooby
Floyd L. Davidson
>OK folks, here is how to correct dark JPGs. (Answering my own
>question.)
What you meant to say is "Here is one way to ..."
It's a quickie solution, but it is far from the best.
If you want to do it "right" (for almost any variation in
level of perfectionism of the person doing the work), use
a "curves" tool to adjust brightness, gamma, and black level.
You will almost certainly like the results better, but
it also will take more time.
...
>You can now thank ME for finding the info on how to fix dark JPGs...
>unless you never have dark JPGs that need fixing. Fat chance, huh? Ha
>ha.
Well, I'll admit that particular method had never crossed my
mind before. I was indeed just a little amazed at how well it
does work; but I did compare it to other ways:
1) Get a proper JPEG in the first place (by far
the best, of course).
2) Using a curves tool.
3) Using only brightness and contrast controls.
4) Using layers, with blend mode set to various
options, such as "Screen", "Dodge", "Addition",
and "Multiply".
Those are listed in order of my preference for the
results obtained with the particular image that I
experimented with.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
D.Mac
"Dave Cohen" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
news:gm1tkq$qrn$1...@news.motzarella.org...
Perhaps not Dave. Industry practice is to provide images the photographer
has been able to print OK on *HIS* printer. Maybe a less reputable
photographer actually delivers postcard size images with deliberate flaws
like the OP has in order to pick up money for printing decent ones. We don't
know but being in the industry, I do know what cowboy operators do and this
stinks of a shoot & burn deal.