"Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> oi
> "KatWoman" wrote: about 1 or 2 megapixels of course it's grainy,
> > garbage in>>> garbage out (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The OP doesn't say how he intends to use the pictures, but I think you
are
> being overly negative about 1 or 2 megapixel quality. As an experiment,
I
> took one of my full frame, 8 megapixel shots, and divided it like a
> tic-tac-toe game, so each square had 1/9 the area--therefore, less than
1
> megapixel. It didn't look bad when I filled my computer screen with it.
> Certainly capable of being viewed larger than a cell-phone screen.
>
> I think you are probably right, that the OP doesn't have the PS Elements
> techniques needed for this task. But, as I said earlier, I believe the
> photo is badly underexposed, and the best recourse is to put on the dark
> suit again and reshoot it in better light. Better yet, wear lighter
colored
> clothing--black is hard to render well, even in good light.
Me? I think you are the one overlooked at the whole issue and way too
much
possitive which won't help with the real issue.
YES, in general 1-2MG should be plenty good for great 4x6" print
NO, in some case even 8-12MG is no better than a bigger trash. But this
is
another story.
Now back to the main issue, the main issue isn't about the 1-2MG pixel
image but the QUALITY of the image from the tiny lens. And the lens can
make a HUGE difference. I don't remember who said it, but I would say
s/he
is right ".. the cellphone image is only good for the cellphone".
|
