Why digital image always look flat, especially the facial part?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Victor81, Dec 14, 2003.

  1. Victor81

    Victor81 Guest

    ok, I work at a digital photo lab, we do both digital and film. My
    question is, is there any way to make the digital prints look more
    like film especially in depth and tonality?

    the problem I have is that all digital prints appear flat, very
    noticable to me and my coworders. and there hasn't been any digital
    prints I could find that don't appear flat on facial part. I
    personally just purchased a canon 10d last month and did some prints,
    the results were also flat as I expected.

    please, help! is there any way that I can make the prints look more
    alive from the digital cameras? any filters for photoshot on this
    issue?

    please give advice thanks a lot.
     
    Victor81, Dec 14, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. If you have access to Photoshop, you could try Filters/Sharpen/UnsharpMask (USM)
    using values of 30, 60, 0 or similar. This will raise the contrast and with
    shots taken in misty conditions (say at the seaside or in the mountains) is
    useful for removing the effects of mist. It can also raise the local contrast
    in facial features, giving more life to the image. (Check and uncheck the
    preview box to see what the effect is.)
    You could also try Curves to raise the contrast of the midtones. Use the mouse
    to change the straight line to a steeper shape with flattened areas at the top
    and bottom ends.
     
    Malcolm Stewart, Dec 14, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. You've been trolled. Please don't feed the trolls.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 14, 2003
    #3
  4. George Preddy, Dec 14, 2003
    #4
  5. That's what I was thinking. The OP's message is nonsense, and we all
    know it.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Dec 14, 2003
    #5
  6. Gary Eickmeier, Dec 14, 2003
    #6
  7. To the contrary, SD9s continue to sell used at nearly 100% of their new
    value. Check ebay.
     
    George Preddy, Dec 14, 2003
    #7
  8. Victor81

    Paul H. Guest

    Here's the solution: if you take the digital prints out from under your
    bridge into the sunlight, you'll find that many of them actually look better
    than film prints. Most trolls don't realize how warped their vision has
    become, living continually crouched down in the dark dampness, emerging only
    to lay bait for unwary travelers.

    However, your real problem stems from a complete lack of cleverness, since
    your bait was all too obvious.

    Hope this helps.
     
    Paul H., Dec 14, 2003
    #8
  9. You mean they are beginning to sell new for 100% of their used value...

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Dec 16, 2003
    #9
  10. No, they've always have sold used for about their new value, you simply
    don't know because you haven't taken any time to learn about your options.
     
    George Preddy, Dec 16, 2003
    #10
  11. Victor81

    Noel Guest

    Strange, isn't it Steve? How everything you 'advocate' sells used at
    nearly 100% of new value? Like that steam-powered Amiga you love so
    much?
     
    Noel, Dec 17, 2003
    #11
  12. Victor81

    JPS Guest

    JPS, Dec 18, 2003
    #12
  13. RE/
    I notice something and I'm not even half-serious about photography.

    Dunno if "flat" is the word I'd use, but comparing my home-printed digital pix
    with 35mm prints there's definately a consistand difference.

    My assumption was that it's a combination of my printer's limitations on
    gradiating/shading color and the camers's limitation on sensing/recording same.
     
    (Pete Cresswell), Dec 18, 2003
    #13
  14. I'm not sure why all digital images aren't really really blurry, blurry
    looks so much better.
     
    George Preddy, Dec 19, 2003
    #14
  15. Victor81

    JPS Guest

    In message <bruqe1$n7f$>,
    That's the reality of sampling. You can not sample properly and get
    high edge and pixel-to-pixel contrast. It's mathematically impossible.
    That's one reason why your Sigma SD9 pictures look bad on the monitor,
    and even worse when printed.

    Ideally, digital captures would be quite blurry in a 1:1, 100% zoom. If
    that's not the case, then there is still more lens resolution to take
    advantage of.

    I can't say I've always known this stuff, but I picked up on it very
    quickly once presented with it. What's your excuse for not
    understanding *anything* about sampling after multiple explanations form
    multiple angles, from multiple people?
    --
     
    JPS, Dec 19, 2003
    #15
  16. No, it's the reality of owning a very, very blurry Canon DSLR.
     
    George Preddy, Dec 19, 2003
    #16
  17. Victor81

    JPS Guest

    In message <brv7q6$4sn$>,
    No, the 10D is a little soft, in a 100% or 1:1 view on a monitor, with
    default RAW processing parameters. It has attenuated high-frequency
    detail that can be brought out with software sharpening, if desired, and
    this works best with lenses that are actually sharp, and low ISOs (so as
    not to boost the noise with the details).
    --
     
    JPS, Dec 19, 2003
    #17
  18. Victor81

    Mark Herring Guest

    Wrong as usual Georgie boy
    **************************
    Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
     
    Mark Herring, Dec 19, 2003
    #18
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.