Which is better, edited or original?

[Jeffbox]

Original:

Edited:

I think I like the edited one but I don't have any fancy PS or anything, I just did a few things (contrast, despeckle?) in a trial version of "Saint Paint." Suggestions?

 

[oCyrus55]

I think the orig. looks better.

 

[Nurd]

The original for me. Looks so much sharper.

 

[Tiberius]

The original feels a touch washed-out. The edited version looks underexposed and blurry. I much prefer the original.

 

[elsaspet]

Second.

I would prefer a slight loss of sharpness over flat lighting.

 

[fmw]

The original needs sharpening like the edited one has.

 

[parthiv91]

I think by editing you lost the shaprness. Compare the leaves on the plam tree in the middle (slightly right) of the image. Compare the alloy front wheel of the car. Compare the main door (entrance) of the building behind. I the the original was better. Anyway whats the subject of the photo. The car or the building behind ??

 

[Jeffbox]

I wanted the subject to be the car. I took the pic with a 7.2mp P&S I just got and honestly I thought the pics would have came out clearer. I know it's no SLR but do you have any suggestions? Do you think a tripod would make a big difference? Thanks for helping the noob

 

[druzilla]

ide have to go with the original

 

[britonk]

If you look closely you will find you have lost some definition on the edited one. Compare the right air inlet on the car - in the original there is some detail - in the edited one there is just a black hole.

Considering this was taken with a compact it's pretty good. I like the composition To cut down on noise you could perhaps lower your ISO to 200 rather than 400 if the camera allows this - given the lighting this may have meant using a slightly slower shutter speed which may benefit from a Tripod.

Hope this helps..

 

[mysteryscribe]

It has been my limited experience that digital will go soft in a heartbeat. No matter how sharp the image begins it usually has to be resharpened when you start screwing around with it. That may or may not be true but it seems that way to me. It isn't a sin in my mind to resharpen it.

 

[britonk]

Very true mysteryscribe - it's all to easy to improve one aspect of a photo and adversely effect another aspect in digital imaging.

 

[The_Traveler]

It has been my limited experience that digital will go soft in a heartbeat. No matter how sharp the image begins it usually has to be resharpened when you start screwing around with it.

This observation might be a little misleading. Sharpness is 'added' to a digital image by emphasizing the junction between different tones, colors, by altering the pixels directly adjacent to the 'edge'. If you shoot jpgs, it is the firmware in the camera that does this 'sharpening.' If you shoot raw, you can handle the unaltered image.

When you change the image in post-processing by altering the contrast, color or size, you may be obliterating those few pixels that are the 'sharpened' edge.

It is usually best to do your sharpening as the last step in your processing. If you resize down for submission to a forum, it is almost obligatory to sharpen again.

For example, if the sharpened edge is 3 pixels wide and you reduce the image from 3000 pixels to 700 pixels, the sharpened edge essentially disappears. Thus you can see that any significant changes in an image can effect the sharpened edge.

For a quite readable account of sharpening you might look at http://www.bythom.com/sharpening.htm.

 

[Ducks_own]

I think the first is better. But either way, the S2000 is a pretty car.

 

[oldnavy170]

I have to admit that I am not noticing much difference between the two.