The new guy

[QUOTE=Rodder454]sorry man.......your not winning that battle :D.[/QUOTE]

was that to me or someone else??

[QUOTE=ifasehun]also, the site looks very spartan, but in a "i am not big on details" kinda way.[/QUOTE]
What other kind of "spartan" is there?

[QUOTE=afguy91506]was that to me or someone else??[/QUOTE]
And I would assume that would be directed at your attempts to fix the pictures, it appears as if you just blurred them.

Anyways, I think the design would be greatly enhanced with a light and unobtrusive texture for the content area. And Try to expand it or something to avoid scrolling. That ruins the effect of looking like a piece of paper. Try smaller thumbnails for your portfolio.

[QUOTE=Telemakhos]And I would assume that would be directed at your attempts to fix the pictures, it appears as if you just blurred them.
.[/QUOTE]

so your going to sit there and tell me that thoughs pictures look just as bad as they do with the originals?? come on dude thats retarded! and F u you think all i can do is "blur" a photo?? whatever... tele your really starting to bug me.

to you.

Really, once the pixel information is lost (bad quality) there aint much to bring it back...blurring/cloning/adding noise/repainting etc.

ok you just said there isnt much to bring it back then named off *4* ways to do it???

afguy91506

Do some research on the Median filter. It could really help those photos out a lot. But the quality of them IS terrible. Were they scanned? Rodder is right, you can't put back lost information, you can only try to disguise it. The blur is not an effective way to do it in your case though, it needs to be blurred way too much to cover up the severe pixelation.

those are 4 ways to try and bring it back...not four ways that WILL bring it back. Unless your absolutely skilled, your as good as screwed. Again, once the pixel information is lost, its lost pretty much.


edit: Or whats spectra said. I must be a slow typer...there are always replies posted between when i read the thread.....and when i hit submit lol

This shouldnt even have come up.

yeah, but low quality cameras can often times make a great picture look bad because of , well, the low quality of the pic! The most wonderful picture wont look good if it's really grainy.

I meant, the best shot looks bad because of low quality. I never said you couldn't photoedit the picture - of course you can! This is a given considering photoshop's ability and what it's meant to do. I was talking about photos just taken and not edited.

I see no reason why to get pissed at Tele. He just said, hey, your pics look like they were blurred, so they aren't much better . It's a crit just like all the other crits we give here. And guess what, he's right. i mean, sure, they don't look grainy anymore, but the photos dont have any integrity anymore either.

ok you just said there isnt much to bring it back then named off *4* ways to do it???

No idea what angle you're coming from here... that statement was quite confusing.


edit. oh yeah, who was that in the pictures? I'd hit it.

[QUOTE=afguy91506]so your going to sit there and tell me that thoughs pictures look just as bad as they do with the originals?? come on dude thats retarded! and F u you think all i can do is "blur" a photo?? whatever... tele your really starting to bug me.[/QUOTE]
Hey, I wasn't trying to start a confrontation. I was pointing out what I thought he was talking about. I said it "appeared" as if you just blurred it, because that what it looked like off hand. I never said that's all you can do.

My post was not intended to be offensive in any way and I'm sorry if you took it that way.