Keeping a watchful eye on me - common loon and chick

[Randy Stout]

Another one from recent trip to northern Michigan. Dark, dreary day, so flash was my friend. This chick is about 7 days old. A friend checked him out last week and he has doubled in size!

D700 600VR with 1.4 TC 1/400s f/6.3 ISO 800 SB800 with beamer
Mounted on a pedestal, sitting in the bottom of my little boat, Loonie TOO.

Post: Selective sharpening, curves, water cleanup, rotated

Advice and comments always appreciated.

Cheers

Randy

[Ofer Levy]

This is very nice Randy! Good flash work and lovely intimate image. Posting a version in sRGB can be even nicer.

[Cheryl Arena Molennor]

Love the mom/baby shots. I nee to visit Michigan. to see these. Great low angle, the baby resting is so nice as well as the water drop and water color

[Daniel Cadieux]

Very intimate, I like the chick's pose. Very nice green reflection. Good flash work. I could see a few white streaks in the water eliminated (e.g. above the baby's back, touching the adult's neck).

This version is in sRGB according to PS...

[Ofer Levy]

This version is in sRGB according to PS...
This is interesting as according to my CS5 the original is in ADOBE 98. This is the same image converted from ADOBE 98 to sRGB.

[Randy Stout]

Ofer:

When I used "Save for Web", I checked the sRGB box. (In CS5)

Interesting the variations we are getting. Will have to do some sleuthing. The colors are duller than in my original, that is for sure.

Cheers

Randy

[Daniel Cadieux]

Interesting indeed...

Randy, the repost's colours are more vivid than your original!

[Ofer Levy]

Interesting indeed...

Randy, the repost's colours are more vivid than your original!
Interesting that Daniel and I see the repost with vivd colours while Randy sees the original more vivid....:2

[Randy Stout]

Ofer:

I def. feel your repost is more vivid, sorry if that got lost in the semantics. What I meant was, that the original file in CS5 was much more vivid than the sRGB version that came out of "save for web", even though I did for sure convert it to sRGB. This more than a little aggravating, and it seems that greens are most effected by this conversion. Of course, it could be that I do a lot of loons on green water, so that is what I notice :t3

I do appreciate everyones input, hoping to get rid of this nagging issue.

Cheers

Randy

[Norm Dulak]

Ofer:

When I used "Save for Web", I checked the sRGB box. (In CS5)

Interesting the variations we are getting. Will have to do some sleuthing. The colors are duller than in my original, that is for sure.

Cheers

Randy

Hi Randy. After you check the convert to sRGB box, be sure to also check the "Embed Color Profile" box, or the sRGB conversion will not be preserved.

As for the repost, I also think it is too vivid and prefer your OP. :S3:

[arash_hazeghi]

looks very nice, great HA for both and nice water colors. For me chick needs a bit more sharpening.

color-wise since FireFox supports color profile (both sRGB and Adobe RGB) and my screen is set to Adobe RGB I see no difference between the OP and repost :eek:

[Ofer Levy]

Ofer:

I def. feel your repost is more vivid, sorry if that got lost in the semantics. What I meant was, that the original file in CS5 was much more vivid than the sRGB version that came out of "save for web", even though I did for sure convert it to sRGB. This more than a little aggravating, and it seems that greens are most effected by this conversion. Of course, it could be that I do a lot of loons on green water, so that is what I notice :t3

I do appreciate everyones input, hoping to get rid of this nagging issue.

Cheers

Randy
Randy, the only thing I've changed in the repost is the colour space. This shows you that for some reason the colour space in your OP is not sRGB.

[Randy Stout]

Ofer:

This makes me think that Norm is right, that although I had the convert to sRGB checked, that this information wasn't embedded in the image and lost when it got out of CS5. So, I did a test run with embed color profile checked, and the resultant image displayed more closely to what I expected.

Great fun!

Cheers

Randy

[Kiran Poonacha]

Beautiful image Randy, the chicks pose adds very well here..:cheers:

[allanrube]

I would like the greens more vivid than the original but not as much as the repost. Randy, when you "fixed" the problem, did the colors appear "between" the two posted here.

I do not think the chick needs sharpening. It is a little fuzzball. :S3:

[Randy Stout]

I would like the greens more vivid than the original but not as much as the repost. Randy, when you "fixed" the problem, did the colors appear "between" the two posted here.

I do not think the chick needs sharpening. It is a little fuzzball. :S3:

Allan:

Yes, right between the two, and very accurate compared to the original NEF raw file.

Thanks

Randy

[Ofer Levy]

Allan:

Yes, right between the two, and very accurate compared to the original NEF raw file.

Thanks

Randy
This is getting even more interesting...I wonder how can it be different than my repost in which I only changed the colour space to sRGB....:2

[Geir Jensen]

A very nice picture. I like the colors in the background. The chicken on the back of the adult bird. Everything is good in this picture. Regards Geir Jensen

[Sid Garige]

Excellent image Randy. Great pose.

[Doug Brown]

First of all, lovely image Randy! I think I know what's going on with the color. As Norm pointed out, you have to click the 'Embed Color Profile' when saving for web. If you don't do this, when someone else downloads the image and opens it in PS, the image will adopt the working color space as its own. If you go to 'Convert to Profile' you'll see your working space listed as the source color space. If you change your working color space and go back to 'Convert to Profile' you'll see your new working color space as the source color space.

Here is a screenshot of your image downloaded from BPN and opened in CS5 with a working color space of Adobe RGB.

96654

[Doug Brown]

And here's a screenshot of the same image when I change my working space to ProPhoto RGB.

96655

As you can see, when there is no embedded profile (it does get embedded when you check the 'Embed Color Profile' box in Save for Web), the image borrows your working color space.

[Doug Brown]

Here's what happens when I resave the image in 'Save for Web' and check the 'Embed Color Profile' box. You can see that the source space is now sRGB when I open the file and go to 'Convert to Profile'.

96656

[Norm Dulak]

Hi Randy.

In my previous comments I neglected to tell you what I actually thought about this image. I find it absolutely charming and beautiful, and I wouldn't change a thing.

Norm

[Daniel Cadieux]

OK, so I guess this is something new since CS2? When I open Randy's original image (in CS2), go to "Convert to Profile", it says his image is in sRGB (same message as in pane #22, excpet colours of OP).

Randy, sorry if your thread has gone haywire with this issue...hopefully it will serve as a learning tool for some - it has been for me!

[Randy Stout]

Doug:

Thanks for the detailed explanation and pictures. Very helpful

Daniel:

Not only did it help me, but I am sure others will benefit, so I don't mind the image becoming a teaching point.

It was a pretty cool morning with them. Until this year, I didn't have a lot of good quality back riding images, and now I have a lot!:t3

Cheers

Randy

[yogesh_puranik]

superb low angle fantastic detials that chick is just amazing..wow..this is very good learning thread..fantastic..

[Stu Bowie]

Randy, you have used your opportunity well here, and just love the tender moment with parent and chick. I really like the green hues in the overall image, and the loon is nice and sharp. Good flashwork BTW.

[Gary Esman]

Randy, excellent shot! Like the low angle, summer colors and the little guy on the back!
Awesome thread with a great lesson, very cool. This is why BPN rocks.

Gary.

[Grady Weed]

Love the water drop off of the beak and the low suggle the chick has. A classic pose that is so hard to come by. You can shoot several hundred images and be out in hot humid weather for half a day nd not get this. I know, I have done it. Nice image Randy. Sorry for being late to the party.

[noelle zaleski]

Lovely image Randy.... very sweet and intimate moment :S3:

[Roger Clark]

This is getting even more interesting...I wonder how can it be different than my repost in which I only changed the colour space to sRGB....:2

Ofer,

If the original was sRGB and did not have a color profile embedded, then if you imported it into photoshop and assuming your default color space is not sRGB (e.g default for photographers is usually proPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB) then photoshop can assume the image has the
default color space. Then when you convert to sRGB, you are converting an incorrectly assigned color space to sRGB and thus the colors change.

See also this article on color spaces:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/calibrating.your.monitor/

Roger

Edit: OK, I read the rest of the thread and see Doug already posted the answer.