On 7/3/05, Jad Madi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Today I took some shots but I've forgot to disable macro,
> actually all was great shots, but macro screwed them up
Do you know what the word macro means? A macro is a script or list of
instructions/settings (for e.g. a camera, software application, etc.)
that usually produce a certain effect based on a camera. For example,
I've seen "macro" features that do e.g. fast motion photography, or
change settings for dimly lit pictures.
There are a large variety of macro settings, that differ from camera
to camera. IIRC, Many of them change the way pictures are taken, and
changing those back to the form that would have occured without the
macro usually involve pulling values and pixels out of thin air.
What exactly happened to the picture, and what do you consider normal?
Can you send me a copy of one of the pictures? [But do _not_ send to
the list, I think attachements are blocked.]
> is there any filter or method to work on thos shots to make
> them looks normal ?
In most cases, it is easiest to retake the pictures [I know, usually
impossible, but that's why most digital cameras have display screens
so you can tell if you accidentally used a macro or not and fix it
immidiately]. This concept [easier to redo than recover] applies to
alot of issues in computing, unfortunately. (Especally since most
people ignore warnings about irreversable actions and such.)
Furthermore, IIRC, most of the filters in The GIMP are used to remove
e.g. speckles from scanned pictures and to modify, mangle, or add
special/artistic effects to them. If you know what the mathimatical
function was that your camera used in macro mode [which means that you
are a developer of the camera, in which you should make it more
"user-friendly" by making macro-modes harder to enable or keeping
duplicates, an original and a macroed-copy, which would halve storage
"capacities" [in picture counts]] then you can try writing e.g. a C
plugin for The GIMP that reverses the formula, provided randomly
generated numbers weren't used, and pixels weren't thrown away.
I thought beginners weren't supposed to use macro modes. Then again,
digi-cameras nowadays make it too easy to switch modes
unintentionally. The last camera I saw with a macro mode only
increased the detail level with the macro mode (allowing finer details
to be taken in a picture, e.g. the seeds on a white dandilion).
Someone else correct me if I'm wrong.
Gimp-user mailing list