Would love it if you'd describe batch processing of photos. With Photoshop or, I think the simplest way is running ImageMagick on Linux or Windows Cygwin. You can just whack a whole folder of 100 photos with one simple command line. The underlying DSP algorithms are basically identical to Photoshops's.
I assure you the original image was not doctored. That would defeat the purpose of post-processing ;-) We've updated the page to include a link to the original file. To get the brush to the right size, use the "[" and "]" keys to increase and decrease the brush size. In our example, the Color Replacement Tool is actually desaturating whatever you paint. So, if you can't get the brush to the exact size, it is best to select a smaller brush and paint around inside the pupil until the red-eye is gone. Good luck!
I'm curious how the red-eye sample photograph was obtained... the red-eye region appeared to match the paint-brush shape perfectly... Sometimes getting good results takes a wee bit of fiddling so if this was a doctored "good photo" used for illustration it would provide unreasonable expectations as to what a "quick fix" can achieve.
Also, if this is a doctored photo the article should make mention of that.
Actually. Have you tried to do basic stuff like levels, curves and channel mixer with Gimp? The results are inferior to that of Photoshop, especially when you use 16bit/channel mode.
AnandTech, you should do a article where you compare photoediting steps between Photoshop and Gimp.
Nice article if you use Photoshop [Elements]. Did Adobe sponsor this article, Stephen?
Everything you told people how to do with Photoshop can be done just as easily with Paintshop Pro, the full version of which costs only slightly more than Photoshop Elements, but isn't a cut down version like Elements is. Unless it came free with the camera, or a scanner, you'd have to be crazy to go the Photoshop route just for tweaking your pictures when much cheaper and equally good options are available.
Even splashing out for Paintshop Pro is probably unnecessary for the vast majority of people who will find everything they need available in the freeware image program 'The Gimp'. It might have been better to assume people were using The Gimp rather than Photoshop, as everyone can download The Gimp free of charge (legally).
if you're such a hot shot photographer , read dpreview's articles and subscribe to magazine that are FOR pros. This is a sire for hardware geeks , so this little tid bit is great and refreshing.
Great stuff, Stephen. Now all I need is a way to make the crappy, grainy images from my digital camera not look crappy and grainy. (Note to others: The Fuji S5000 shoots *only* in ISO200 or ISO400 modes. So, my options are "grainy" and "really grainy". I'm going to see if I can pick up some halogen lights tonight and maybe they'll help.)
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
20 Comments
Back to Article
Bobby Peru - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link
Would love it if you'd describe batch processing of photos. With Photoshop or, I think the simplest way is running ImageMagick on Linux or Windows Cygwin. You can just whack a whole folder of 100 photos with one simple command line. The underlying DSP algorithms are basically identical to Photoshops's.buttwhacker - Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - link
good article, very informative and i hope u can add to this article.THEJUICE - Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - link
Useful article and enjoy the series. Thanks.vladik007 - Thursday, March 24, 2005 - link
wouldnt it be better just using selection , feather , and adjusting color channels insidethat selection ?red is usually 100% , so you take it down to 5- 10 % , green and blue are best at 50 % in red channel...
never really liked burn tool for red eye ...
stephencaston - Monday, March 21, 2005 - link
#15,I assure you the original image was not doctored. That would defeat the purpose of post-processing ;-) We've updated the page to include a link to the original file. To get the brush to the right size, use the "[" and "]" keys to increase and decrease the brush size. In our example, the Color Replacement Tool is actually desaturating whatever you paint. So, if you can't get the brush to the exact size, it is best to select a smaller brush and paint around inside the pupil until the red-eye is gone. Good luck!
E Scott Channell - Monday, March 21, 2005 - link
I'm curious how the red-eye sample photograph was obtained... the red-eye region appeared to match the paint-brush shape perfectly... Sometimes getting good results takes a wee bit of fiddling so if this was a doctored "good photo" used for illustration it would provide unreasonable expectations as to what a "quick fix" can achieve.Also, if this is a doctored photo the article should make mention of that.
jeffbui - Sunday, March 20, 2005 - link
Good article as well. An amateur has to start somewhere.Gatak - Sunday, March 20, 2005 - link
Actually. Have you tried to do basic stuff like levels, curves and channel mixer with Gimp? The results are inferior to that of Photoshop, especially when you use 16bit/channel mode.AnandTech, you should do a article where you compare photoediting steps between Photoshop and Gimp.
PrinceGaz - Sunday, March 20, 2005 - link
Nice article if you use Photoshop [Elements]. Did Adobe sponsor this article, Stephen?Everything you told people how to do with Photoshop can be done just as easily with Paintshop Pro, the full version of which costs only slightly more than Photoshop Elements, but isn't a cut down version like Elements is. Unless it came free with the camera, or a scanner, you'd have to be crazy to go the Photoshop route just for tweaking your pictures when much cheaper and equally good options are available.
Even splashing out for Paintshop Pro is probably unnecessary for the vast majority of people who will find everything they need available in the freeware image program 'The Gimp'. It might have been better to assume people were using The Gimp rather than Photoshop, as everyone can download The Gimp free of charge (legally).
unhaiduc - Sunday, March 20, 2005 - link
great article, i read every one of your photo tutorials and loved every bit of it!cant wait for the next one :)
vladik007 - Saturday, March 19, 2005 - link
if you're such a hot shot photographer , read dpreview's articles and subscribe to magazine that are FOR pros. This is a sire for hardware geeks , so this little tid bit is great and refreshing.Power to anand and his editors , great job.
vladik007 - Saturday, March 19, 2005 - link
hoppa - Saturday, March 19, 2005 - link
In Soviet Russia, layers adjust YOU.JarredWalton - Friday, March 18, 2005 - link
Great stuff, Stephen. Now all I need is a way to make the crappy, grainy images from my digital camera not look crappy and grainy. (Note to others: The Fuji S5000 shoots *only* in ISO200 or ISO400 modes. So, my options are "grainy" and "really grainy". I'm going to see if I can pick up some halogen lights tonight and maybe they'll help.)CrystalBay - Friday, March 18, 2005 - link
thanks for the toot..blackbrrd - Friday, March 18, 2005 - link
Nice article!More articles like this is good :)
(Don't go the tomshardware way.. 80% of the articles there are useless)
segagenesis - Friday, March 18, 2005 - link
#2 - Wah wah... this is a good article, would you rather have your pictures look like mud?Rocket321 - Friday, March 18, 2005 - link
I found this information very useful and hope to see more photo guides in the future. As an amature this type of infomation is invaluble.Questar - Friday, March 18, 2005 - link
Typical amatuer stuff, adding way too much contrast and color saturation to punch up images.InuYasha - Friday, March 18, 2005 - link
power of phtoshop!