586 Views 4 Replies Latest reply: Apr 10, 2006 6:17 PM by Michael Hetes
Is that the same as PhotoShop calls "Posterization"? If so, it is caused by not enough color depth (i.e., you are asking it to use fewer bits to store the picture). This introduces artifacts such as posterization, because it does not have enough bits left to show different values for nearby colors.
The quicktake was a wonderful innovation. It was ahead of its time, and never caught hold because the rest of the stuff we do today with digital photos was not there to make it really GO. By today's standards, this camera's "fine" mode would not pass muster as "extra coarse" on a more modern camera.
Is that the same as PhotoShop calls "Posterization"?<</div>
Not quite. "Noise" is what they call it when a "halo" of lighter pixels borders an area where light and dark objects meet. Early digital cameras were notorious for this. I was just hoping that there was a simple solution that had been neglected by whoever wrote the manual for the 200.
FYI I am using tungsten lighting for the shots in question, but that should NOT be an issue. I have a Photoshop action to correct for that. And I'm not getting the "flashing aperture" icon that indicates insufficient light.
Your description of that artifact reminds me of the description of "Unsharp Mask". Could the camera be pre-processing the photos to produce this effect?<</div>
OVERuse of the Unsharp Mask could produce this, but I doubt it's something that's built into the 200. AFAIK I didn't do anyhting out of the ordinary when taking these shots. The are listed as "Camera Access" documents, but they're really JPEGs.