Can Photoshop Enhance Cell-Phone Photo?

wrote: (clip) I have done some experimenting
(Gaussian Blur, Despeckle, and other

things), but I don’t get the desired results, and I don’t know what to do.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Did you try Reduce noise? This filter gets rid of noise at the cost of some sharpness. You can play with the balance between the two, and MAYBE find an acceptable compromise. One trick you can try: Make a new layer. In the bottom layer, reduce noise a little too much, so that sharpness suffers. Then go into the upper layer with the eraser (set to maybe 30% density, and with a blurred brush), erase the parts of the image where sharpness doesn’t matter (like the broad areas of your suit, and your cheeks and neck.) By spending some time, you can probably get an image that looks reasonably sharp and not too grainy (noiisy.)

However, it sounds to me like you may have an underexposed image. I’m sure your cell phone doesn’t have a flash. This makes a noisy picture, especially in the dark suit. Could you reshoot it in better light?

wrote in message

Hi. I recently used my cell phone (about 1 or 2 megapixels) to take some photos of myself in a black business suit. I used the self-timer to take the pictures.

These pictures appear rather grainy. My face appears grainy, and my black suit appears very grainy.

My local library has something called Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0, but I don’t know which feature to use. Some guy at the Walgreens photo department told me that the "Filter" drop-down menu can be used to remove graininess from images, but "Filter" has a lot of choices.
I have done some experimenting (Gaussian Blur, Despeckle, and other things), but I don’t get the desired results, and I don’t know what to do.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.

about 1 or 2 megapixels of course it’s grainy,
garbage in>>> garbage out

if these photos will be used larger than 1×2 inches as a cell screen they will always look like crap compared to a decent camera with 5-10 megapixels even a film camera at 1600 will give grain, you have to light it well , use decent resolution in the first place

the solution above with filters blur is close to what you need but without much more knowledge of PS you will not achieve that by yourself

wrote:

Hi. I recently used my cell phone (about 1 or 2 megapixels) to take some photos of myself in a black business suit. I used the self-timer to take the pictures.

These pictures appear rather grainy. My face appears grainy, and my black suit appears very grainy.

That size image is good for cell-phone display, but not much else.

wrote in message

Hi. I recently used my cell phone (about 1 or 2 megapixels) to take some photos of myself in a black business suit. I used the self-timer to take the pictures.

These pictures appear rather grainy. My face appears grainy, and my black suit appears very grainy.

Download the free trial of neatimage and play around.
http://www.neatimage.com/download.html

You may be very pleasantly surprised at the improvement that is possible. Also, post it to www.retouchpro.com and people may take a shot at improving it. For that matter, some of us may see what we can do if you post it to a web page somewhere, such as www.flickr.com
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

"Mike Russell" wrote: (clip) For that matter, some of us may see what we can do if you post it to a

web page somewhere, such as www.flickr.com

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, that sounds like it would be an interesting challenge, especially if there is a way that we can compare results afterward.

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 03:07:46 GMT, Leo Lichtman wrote:

"Mike Russell" wrote: (clip) For that matter, some of us may see what we can do if you post it to a

web page somewhere, such as www.flickr.com

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, that sounds like it would be an interesting challenge, especially if there is a way that we can compare results afterward.

Now that you mention it, with the OP’s permission I could use it for the Curvemeister challenge.
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

wrote:

<snip>

Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.

I would start with at least a good P&S, and if you are good with Photoshop or want more detail then a DSLR is a good choice.

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.

On Jul 3, 1:11�pm, "Leo Lichtman" wrote:

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. �

Hello, and thank you all for your replies. How do I intend to use the photos? Well, I work from time to time as an actor, and I do not wish to spend a few hundred bucks on professional headshots right now. So, I was hoping to use these photos as headshots to be emailed in response to craigslist ads for acting jobs.

My last headshot was taken with my old 35mm camera about a year or more ago by a relative who was a pretty good photographer. This headshot looked really good, and I was able to create a good-looking JPG image by scanning the 4 X 6 print. Now, 1) that relative is unfortunately deceased, 2) the 35mm camera may not be that good any more, 3) I don’t want to spend money on an entire role of film and on developing that entire role of film just to get a new headshot, and 4) we have a new camera cell phone. So, because of those 4 reasons, I used the cell phone’s self timer to take photos of myself.

On the cell phone, the photos looked pretty good. On the computer, they looked OK, but the graininess was significant, especially the suit’s. However, when I went to Walgreens and printed them, they looked kind of bad.

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.

I have noticed that the cell phone does take very good, almost grain- less photos outdoors, in broad daylight. So, maybe I will try to take these pictures again in broad daylight. And maybe I will wear lighter- colored clothing.

As far as expertise in Photoshop, you guys are correct in saying that my knowledge of Photoshop is limited. However, I am told that my local library has a staff member who *is* an expert on Photoshop. So, I may try to seek this gentleman out.

Thanks.

On Jul 2, 7:32�pm, Mike Russell wrote:

Download the free trial of neatimage and play around. �http://www..neatimage.com/download.html
You may be very pleasantly surprised at the improvement >that is possible..

What does neatimage do that Photoshop does not? What features of neatimage would I use?

Also, I am running Windows ME. Is neatimage compatible with that?

Thanks.

Neatimage is a stand alone program that removes noise from an image. Although it is laid out in a step to step fashion, it takes some fiddling, so expect to spend a little time on it. Win ME should not be a problem.

BTW, why not find a good location and do a new head shot outdoors on a semi-cloudy day? This could save you a lot of effort, and look even better than fixing up the indoor image. I’m guessing the colors will look better too.

wrote:

On Jul 2, 7:32?pm, Mike Russell wrote:

Download the free trial of neatimage and play around. ?http://www.neatimage.com/download.html
You may be very pleasantly surprised at the improvement >that is possible.

What does neatimage do that Photoshop does not? What features of neatimage would I use?

I am not neat or Meatimage user but I read it’s a plug-in with option to soften the image to reduce the noise. To me, most if not all of them turn the image into plastic look, and it’s isn’t my style.

Also, I am running Windows ME. Is neatimage compatible with that?

neatimage is a PLUG-IN so as long as Photoshop can run on your Win ME then the chance that neatimage should work with your Photoshop.

And if you are the OP who tries to turn the cellphone image into pro, then I would suggest to forget about it.

Thanks.

"Leo Lichtman" 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 4×6" 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".

Mike Russell schrieb:

Neatimage is a stand alone program that removes noise from an image. Although it is laid out in a step to step fashion, it takes some fiddling, so expect to spend a little time on it. Win ME should not be a problem.
BTW, why not find a good location and do a new head shot outdoors on a semi-cloudy day? This could save you a lot of effort, and look even better than fixing up the indoor image. I’m guessing the colors will look better too.

Mike Russell schrieb:

Neatimage is a stand alone program that removes noise from an image. Although it is laid out in a step to step fashion, it takes some fiddling, so expect to spend a little time on it. Win ME should not be a problem.
BTW, why not find a good location and do a new head shot outdoors on a semi-cloudy day? This could save you a lot of effort, and look even better than fixing up the indoor image. I’m guessing the colors will look better too.

Mike,

it’s stand-alone and simultaneously a plug-in for PhS.
The image data are decomposed for luminance and two chrominance channels.
Noise reduction for luminance and chrominance is normally different and for both groups sorted by frequency: low, medium, high. Furtheron, after removing noise, the image can be sharpened, again sorted by frequency.
My impression is, as observed by J., the result can have easily a ‘plastic look’. That’s all up to the operator.

Best regards –Gernot Hoffmann

"Joe" wrote: (clip) 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. (clip)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How did that become the main issue? The OP was looking for help with "graininess." Please tell me how the small lens on a cell phone contributes to graininess. My comment was that the problem was likely due to underexposure. The OP has since confirmed this by stating that his outdoor photos do not have this problem. Since he is going to e-mail the portraits to casting recruiters, and cell phones are intended for that purpose, why are you trying to make him into a "camera club perfectionist?"

wrote in message
On Jul 3, 1:11?pm, "Leo Lichtman" wrote:

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. ?

Hello, and thank you all for your replies. How do I intend to use the photos? Well, I work from time to time as an actor, and I do not wish to spend a few hundred bucks on professional headshots right now. So, I was hoping to use these photos as headshots to be emailed in response to craigslist ads for acting jobs.

My last headshot was taken with my old 35mm camera about a year or more ago by a relative who was a pretty good photographer. This headshot looked really good, and I was able to create a good-looking JPG image by scanning the 4 X 6 print. Now, 1) that relative is unfortunately deceased, 2) the 35mm camera may not be that good any more, 3) I don’t want to spend money on an entire role of film and on developing that entire role of film just to get a new headshot, and 4) we have a new camera cell phone. So, because of those 4 reasons, I used the cell phone’s self timer to take photos of myself.

On the cell phone, the photos looked pretty good. On the computer, they looked OK, but the graininess was significant, especially the suit’s. However, when I went to Walgreens and printed them, they looked kind of bad.

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.

I have noticed that the cell phone does take very good, almost grain- less photos outdoors, in broad daylight. So, maybe I will try to take these pictures again in broad daylight. And maybe I will wear lighter- colored clothing.

As far as expertise in Photoshop, you guys are correct in saying that my knowledge of Photoshop is limited. However, I am told that my local library has a staff member who *is* an expert on Photoshop. So, I may try to seek this gentleman out.

Thanks.

well asking me would be wrong as actor headshots are big part of my living for over 25 years

any decent agent would not accept a cell phone picture and handing in such crappy shot promotes the idea you think you’re not worth investing money into, so why would a director or producer?? the talent we work for would never think to present less than the best because they already see themselves as pros and present themselves as such they average time of use 1-2 years some use it 4-5 years and all come back over the years and say I never has such great shots I got lots of work etc most headshots $150-600 depending averaged out over that time is CHEAP you want people to pay you for your acting don’t you??

your headshot is your calling card
it should be absolutely professional
or at least a decent amateur shot

stay away from websites & agents that take any old pictures and say oh we showcase you for X amount money or we make picture packages and directories ask your acting coach or other professional actors who is good

"Leo Lichtman" wrote:

"Joe" wrote: (clip) 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. (clip)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How did that become the main issue? The OP was looking for help with

It become MAIN ISSUE because it was talking out of it and getting back the the MAIn ISSUE.

"graininess." Please tell me how the small lens on a cell phone contributes to graininess. My comment was that the problem was likely due to underexposure. The OP has since confirmed this by stating that his outdoor photos do not have this problem. Since he is going to e-mail the portraits to casting recruiters, and cell phones are intended for that purpose, why are you trying to make him into a "camera club perfectionist?"

More than glad too, because besides good lighting it requires a good quality lens in order to capture a good image.

1. And just by looking at the tiny hole of the cellphone lens you can smell that there won’t be enough light can get through the tiny hole in a short time. Even if you fart through that hole there won’t be much gas can get through.

2. Quality lens meaning it’s capable of capturing good image at poorer situation, and in order to capture good image at poor situation it requires good glass. And everything adds up to hundreds or thousands of dollars just for a good lens.

I am not making the "camera club" but you are the one try to be a member of camera club. So learn to get the fact straight.

On Jul 4, 7:02�pm, "KatWoman" wrote:

any decent agent would not accept a cell phone picture and handing in such crappy shot promotes the idea you think you’re not worth investing money into, so why would a director or producer??

Well, over the past few years, I have applied for work as an extra, and I have responded to craigslist ads seeking actors for speaking roles. Casting directors who cast extras and producers who put out craigslist ads, are people who generally accept less-than-professional headshots.

I will probably get professional headshots EVENTUALLY, but I don’t want to do that RIGHT NOW.

One problem I have with spending several hundred dollars for a headshot is that there is no money-back guarantee. If the photo makes me look less-than-attractive, then I can’t get a refund. Usually, if I spend several hundred dollars on a product (such as an electronic gadget), I make sure that there is a warranty or a return policy. With headshots, there is no warranty or a return policy.

stay away from websites & agents that take any old pictures and say oh we showcase you for X amount money

I already know to stay away from people who demand money.

Thanks for your reply.

On Jul 4, 11:27�am, wrote:

it’s stand-alone and simultaneously a plug-in for PhS.
The image data are decomposed for luminance and two chrominance channels.
Noise reduction for luminance and chrominance is normally different and for both groups sorted by frequency: low, medium, high. Furtheron, after removing noise, the image can be sharpened, again sorted by frequency.
My impression is, as observed by J., the result can have easily a ‘plastic look’. �That’s all up to the operator.

I am glad that Neatimage can work as a standalone. I do not have Photoshop at home. I use Photoshop at the library.

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 22:37:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Jul 4, 7:02?pm, "KatWoman" wrote:

any decent agent would not accept a cell phone picture and handing in such crappy shot promotes the idea you think you’re not worth investing money into, so why would a director or producer??

Well, over the past few years, I have applied for work as an extra, and I have responded to craigslist ads seeking actors for speaking roles. Casting directors who cast extras and producers who put out craigslist ads, are people who generally accept less-than-professional headshots.

I will probably get professional headshots EVENTUALLY, but I don’t want to do that RIGHT NOW.

One problem I have with spending several hundred dollars for a headshot is that there is no money-back guarantee. If the photo makes me look less-than-attractive, then I can’t get a refund. Usually, if I spend several hundred dollars on a product (such as an electronic gadget), I make sure that there is a warranty or a return policy. With headshots, there is no warranty or a return policy.

stay away from websites & agents that take any old pictures and say oh we showcase you for X amount money

I already know to stay away from people who demand money.
Thanks for your reply.

Jeez…a disposable 35mm camera can be purchased at any drugstore and the images recorded as .jpgs on a CD…all for under $15/20. Stand in front of a closet door and drape a bedsheet (preferably a non-patterned colored sheet) over the door as background and have someone shoot a roll of images. At least one of the 24 has to be better than a mobile phone camera image.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

wrote:

<snip>

One problem I have with spending several hundred dollars for a headshot is that there is no money-back guarantee. If the photo makes me look less-than-attractive, then I can’t get a refund. Usually, if I spend several hundred dollars on a product (such as an electronic gadget), I make sure that there is a warranty or a return policy. With headshots, there is no warranty or a return policy.

Are you talking about blowing the head-off with 12G shotgun or something as I haven’t heard of hundreds of bucks for a stinky head <bg>

I have to agree with KW. Call around, talk to them about what you want, and about your concerns, and look at the photographer’s work. Most pro portrait studios will allow you to reject the result, or at least have a redo. Ask the photographer.

Just having a hair, fill, and back light will give your image a professional look. It gives you an edge, and if it gets you one gig, it pays for itself.
—
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

wrote in message
On Jul 4, 7:02?pm, "KatWoman" wrote:

any decent agent would not accept a cell phone picture and handing in such crappy shot promotes the idea you think you’re not worth investing money into, so why would a director or producer??

Well, over the past few years, I have applied for work as an extra, and I have responded to craigslist ads seeking actors for speaking roles. Casting directors who cast extras and producers who put out craigslist ads, are people who generally accept less-than-professional headshots.

I will probably get professional headshots EVENTUALLY, but I don’t want to do that RIGHT NOW.

One problem I have with spending several hundred dollars for a headshot is that there is no money-back guarantee. If the photo makes me look less-than-attractive, then I can’t get a refund. Usually, if I spend several hundred dollars on a product (such as an electronic gadget), I make sure that there is a warranty or a return policy. With headshots, there is no warranty or a return policy.

stay away from websites & agents that take any old pictures and say oh we showcase you for X amount money

I already know to stay away from people who demand money.

Thanks for your reply.
it’s your life
and you get to decide
BUT a bad first impression may be your LAST IMPRESSION

I can guarantee if you do the research I suggested, ANY pro picture will beat your cell shot

"Joe" wrote: (clip) 2. Quality lens meaning it’s capable of capturing good image at poorer

situation, and in order to capture good image at poor situation it requires
good glass. And everything adds up to hundreds or thousands of dollars just
for a good lens. (clip)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Okay. I get it now. The OP, who is barely willing to spend $15 or $20 to handle this problem, needs to buy a lens that "adds up to hundreds or thousands of dollars." Plus a camera to mount it on.

"KatWoman" wrote: (clip) 3) I don’t want to spend money on an entire role of film and on

developing that entire role of film just to get a new headshot, (clip)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I just re-read your reasons for avoiding going to a professional, and this one really stands out. You are being pennywise and pound foolish. There are two benefits to having your headshot done competently. The first is image quality. The second, and just as important, is the artistic and interpretive quality of the photograph. You wouldn’t offer a car for sale without washing it and vacuuming the carpets, even though you and the prospective buyer both know that this is a trivial matter in terms of the true value of the car. There is a psychological impact which may queer a deal. The same is true of your headshots. Someone casting a play or movie will judge you from what he has available–an amateurish portrait will put you farther down the pile.

You may be short of money just because you are saving money.

"Leo Lichtman" wrote:

"Joe" wrote: (clip) 2. Quality lens meaning it’s capable of capturing good image at poorer

situation, and in order to capture good image at poor situation it requires
good glass. And everything adds up to hundreds or thousands of dollars just
for a good lens. (clip)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Okay. I get it now. The OP, who is barely willing to spend $15 or $20 to handle this problem, needs to buy a lens that "adds up to hundreds or thousands of dollars." Plus a camera to mount it on.

Well, you may think you got it, but I can tell you that you ain’t getting it yet <bg>