Skin complexion looks like clay on my processed pictures...why?

[ds67]

I just got a Canon Powershot A620 and my skin tones look like clay still.

I say still because I had the same complaint with my Sony camera. But I think it may be from the "auto-enhance" feature on the Kodak processing machine at the stores.

I took pictures with my new camera this Saturday at b-day party and went and printed them out on a Kodak machine at Wal-mart and did the auto-enhance feature and I was totally bummed to see the same clay-like complexions.

So I borrowed my neices Canon Poweshot SD400 and took Easter pictures yesterday and went and had them printed on a Kodak machine but didn't have them auto enhanced and the skin tones looked much better.

Do you have your photos "auto-enhanced" and does the skin look like clay or painted?? That's the only way I can explain of how the skin looks.

[Telecorder]

I say still because I had the same complaint with my Sony camera. But I think it may be from the "auto-enhance" feature on the Kodak processing machine at the stores.
It may be a combination of noise reduction processing -- both in-camera settings and then, once again, in the Kodak Auto-enhance processing. Excessive noise reduction tends to show up as plastic skin syndrome by taking most all of the image's details out as perceived noise.

Try putting your camera's setting to no or low noise reduction and don't use auto enhance on the kiosk and see if that addresses the issue...

As a suggestion, try down loading the free Picasa2 software and do your own 'Auto Enhancing' first. It does a good job on its own or allows you to do individual post processing for contrast, exposure etc. A free and good noise reduction software that I use and recommend is Neat Image. It will do an assesment of noise and filter it out without much loss of details automatically. It also is pretty powerful for tweaking noise reduction/removal when you have more understanding and experience in Post Processing...

http://picasa.google.com/

http://www.neatimage.com/

[ds67]

Thank you for the reply. I am a novice at this digital camera thing and I wasn't going to ask for fear of sounding like an idiot but I will go ahead and ask...what does "noise" mean in terms of photos? I've read some of the reviews and he refers to "noise" but I have no idea what that means.

Thanks.

[Fred]

It's the digital equivalent of film grain. Higher ISO settings and/or long exposures tend to generate an electrical disturbance known as "noise". It shows up as a speckled area, usually in an area of the picture that has a broad expanse of one color, like a sky. Hope that helps.

[Telecorder]

Thank you for the reply. I am a novice at this digital camera thing and I wasn't going to ask for fear of sounding like an idiot but I will go ahead and ask...what does "noise" mean in terms of photos? I've read some of the reviews and he refers to "noise" but I have no idea what that means.
Thanks.

Please, please, don't hesitate to ask questions if something isn't understood, clear or makes sense! These are forums of people with shared interests and willingness to offer insights, guidance, encouragement and share our passion. As long as you post in good taste and with sincerity, you should never be put down or looked down at. If you do, others will trounce the 'Troll' when they do...:mad:

I started w/my FZ5 Pany digi last November and started at a stage of total ignorance. Last true camera was way back in the 1970's... In the last 6-months, I've shot over 6,000 photos and have found a second life on this and other forums making new friends and learning my new passion. So, don't be shy - be active and ask/post/learn!:D

As Fred stated, noise is akin to grain in film images that is caused by electrical interference in the sensor. Every digital camera has some to one degree or another; even high end dSLR digis. Its how closely packed the pixel sensors are on the camera's chip, how much/good the in-camera processing the camera does to remove the interference and how much pixel-peeping one does when viewing the image at 72-DPI (Dots per Inch) on a PC monitor (especially when zooming in greater than 100% of original image size...) Also, re-compression of jpg files a number of times will also introduce its own form of noise called jpeg jazzies by some...

A lot of times, noise that is apparent in an image on a PC monitor will not even show or be a factor when printed out at 4x6, 5x7 or even up to 8x10 prints since prints are usually done at 200 - 300 DPI density compared to the 72-DPI on a monitor. (Zooming in on an image on a PC Monitor is like looking at a cathode ray TV screen up close with a magnifying glass -- you'll probably only see the individual colored picture elements (pixels) and minimal - to - no detail of the image!)

And learn to take statements by others about how noisy any specific digi model may be with a healthy grain of salt... Its usually, in most all cases, a non-issue -- especially when the user is trying to get the camera to do something it wasn't designed to do (High ISO>100/Low Light for Panasonic FZ series is the most favored one by non-Pany owners...)

And, even then, there are a lot of free PC software programs that do quite an effective job at removing the noise such as the one I use -- Neat Image. Remember that Post Processing of a digital image is much like developing film... its a series of techniques to bring out various aspects of the original image's captured detail. Sometimes, we've used the optimum camera settings available, pressed the shutter at the most opportune time and, voila, the image is a masterpiece out of the camera! Yea, maybe once every 10,000 or so shots for most of us 'prosumers'...:o

To give you an idea of what 'noise' is, look at the two images of mine that were cropped from a much larger 2560 x 1920 image size and then resized up to effect a zoomed-in closeup. -- This excessive noise (and fine detail) removal is probably what you saw in the combined processing of the camera and Kodak 'Auto Enhanced' print that caused the skin to be ultra smooth and plastic looking...

The first is the original image with noise evident in the blue sky by the various and irregular colored blotches. This image is at 72-DPI (or ppi - pixels per inch resolution)
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d73/Telecorder/Photo%20Print%20Critiques/204K-9091.jpg

The second is the same image after it was way over processed through the free Neat Image software to remove the noise. Notice that the high removal settings used also removed most of the images' fine details, as well, making for that 'plastic-look'... (PhotoBucket is becoming maddening by resizing images to a smaller size... But you get thei dea of extreme noise reduction problems) :mad: Again at 72-DPI resolution

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d73/Telecorder/Photo%20Print%20Critiques/bd903cd2.jpg

And this is the original post processed printed image resized from 8x10 for posting (Noticed that I processed out the intervening branch from his shoulder...) at 242-DPI resolution -- more details per inch so minimal - no noise evident (same as one can get printing at high DPI resolutions...)
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d73/Telecorder/Photo%20Print%20Critiques/FM-909_filtered_edited-1Medium_filt.jpg

Whew... long winded dissertation to say, its OK, ask the newbie questions and learn with the rest of us!:) Larger sized final image can be viewed at:
http://iciclelanding.com/aperture?photo=95186&size=768&view=photo

See number two of the three images. Even at the largest, original print size, there is noise to be seen on the PC at the 72-DPI but nary any when these were printed at 8x10... Comments and constructive critiques always welcome.