Photoshop v. Kodak
Begin by looking at the un-edited
image - straight out of the camera.
Image Size = 1,800 x 1,200 pixels
File Size = 783 KB
This is an exercise in crop - and a comparison to see if the added capability
of Photoshop translates to a noticeable difference in the finished product.
Look at the pictures and see if you notice a difference, and then see my
Resized by Kodak
450 x 299 pixels
File Size = 59 KB
File Reduction 50%
633 x 421 pixels
Aspect Ratio 4 x 6 = 1.50:1
File Size = 104 KB
Crop at an Angle
File Reduction = "low"
448 x 290 pixels
Aspect = 1.54:1
File Size = 47 KB
I did not "set up" or stage this particular issue. This happens to me
all the time. I want the roof line and the top of the garage to be
perfectly level (horizontal). Despite my best effort to hold the camera
level - my un-edited image is at a slight angle. The house looks to be
With the Kodak software, I have no option to fix this problem. With
Photoshop - it is an easy fix. As an editor I really like this option.
Does this translate to a noticeable difference? My best guess - on a
printed listing no one would ever notice the difference. On a computer
screen, it might have a slight (sub-conscious?) effect on the "market appeal" of
the photo. What do you think? Do you see the difference? Does
it matter to you?
The most significant effect it would have on me (as the photographer) is - I
want to relax when I snap the photo. If your software does not allow you
to crop at an angle it means:
- Consciously try to hold the camera level - especially the straight on
- Get in the habit of taking 3 pictures - bracket the horizontal angle
This is one of those small minor things that sometimes matter but is not
worth losing sleep over.