I have some technical questions, if I may.
Thanks for posting the pic(s).
- When I download the image and open it I get a "Color profile mismatch" error which I've never seen before. Any ideas what that's about?
- It's an excellent image for only 93KB - did you do anything in particular to get it to that size?
- There's something odd about the way the camoflage comes out if you boost the gamma. Any comments on that?
- What did you use to remove the blemishes from the photos? Photoshop?
Well, the color profile mismatch is because I saved that one for printing (after I had printed it) and then changed it for web/email use. I use "Eye One" to calibrate my monitor to my printer, so that my colors are accurate. What happened was that it was given a profile, then printed. I then saved it for web/email and accidently saved the profile along with it. That's where the "Color profile mismatch" error comes from on your machine. You can try saving it with a different name as a .jpg and it may or may not get rid of that profile. It's nothing with your computer or you, so don't sweat it
As far as it looking good for only 93kb, I dropped the resolution to 100 pixels per inch and saved it at medium quality as a .jpg. I've found that saving things as 100-150 ppi at a medium .jpg helps them to look better on the computer monitors as compared to saving them at 72 ppi at a high .jpg. Even though most monitors only display 72 dpi, sacrificing the higher quality jpg setting at a lower resolution for a lower quality jpg setting at a higher resolution is usually better in the long run.
They way the camoflage (or BDU's rather) comes out when you boost the gamma is a little more technical. The information for the color and their BDU's is there, meaning that it's in the original image. It's just that it's so faint that the camera recognizes it as "near black" or "nearly no information". When you adjust the gamma and whatnot, you bring out the detail, but the program "guess's" what's supposed to be there, so it becomes grainy and looks crappy. It's the same reason why when you have a really dark image on your computer and you try to "brighten" it up, it becomes really grainy or pixelated looking. Now, with that said, I shot the picture at the highest resolution setting that the camera had, so it captured the image at 300 ppi! Meaning that the original image was of excellent quality. If I had shot it at the lowest resolution and only 72 ppi like most "point and shoot" digital cameras have, it probably wouldn't have picked up on that much detail.
Yes, I used photoshop to take out the dust/dirt that was on my lens. I believe that that camera also had a spec of dust on the imager itself, that always showed up. I don't have that camera any more, as it's outdated and Kodak doesn't make it any longer (it was a Kodak DCS 660).
Did this answer all your questions? If not let me know!