Turkey
Wondering how this image displays in your monitor? .. and what OS system/browser are you using? :) ... also interesting the settings for older cameras !!
Comments welcome and much appreciated
Canon IDMk2
500 f4.0 IS 1.4X
f 5.6 1/200 sec
Av -1
ISO 250
Colours look great Alfred, just like a real turkey.
I use a calibrated laptop, Win7 and Firefox.
I really like the nice contrast and details in the feathers. Very well done.
Thanks Dave Will give the mystery after a few have answered !!! :)
... if anything looks odd to anyone please say so !!!
Safari 5 - Windows 7
Colour Balanced (@Work)
Only thing for me is - that is one UGLY bird!!! Could there be something else ;)
... how can you say that Lance ... its much better looking than Fab's bird :D:)
Looks good on Mac (Snow Leopard + Safari 5)
Maybe the can increase saturation on Red a bit more?
Alfred,
Greetings. First look in Firefox & IE looks close nothing objectionable. Second look in PS with sRGB assigned looks slightly duller reds a little darker around the eye. Finally, looking away then back, the browser images (both Firefox & IE) look brighter, the reds borderline radioactive, compared to the sRGB assigned version in PS which seems fairly dull.
Ah, tried assigning aRGB in PS, now the reds are bright and the greens are ticked up a notch (looking particularly better in the feathers) a bit perhaps over the top in the background. Now, the browser versions are a bit dull compared to the aRGB assigned version (though the reds are slightly better contained in the assigned aRGB in PS).
My preference would be for the aRGB assigned in PS version. Surprised that the assigned sRGB is dullest.
The difference would be seen between the browsers if you assigned the color space before posting.
Cheers,
-Michael-
Thanks for the detailed info Michael ... just what I was looking for !! Will wait for a few more and post the info tomorrow !!!!!
Maybe you can re evaluate, this is proving interesting !!!
Sharp shot of this ugly boy...like the chest feathers in particular.
Windows Vista.
Looking at it from my non calibrated laptop. Windows xp pro, firefox. Looks real good to me Al.
Hmmm .. at least on my monitor, there is a halo over his OOF back. I would have suggested that it was oversharpened, but that doesn't make sense to me or I would see the halo over his head too.
Hi Al, Looks good on my mac...don't see any problem...
Hi Al - I'm going to go way out on a limb here and ask if you merged or cloned 2 images in CS5. Is the head from one shot and the body from another? I'm looking at it on IE on a netbook rather than my full monitor but something looks just slightly off on the dof and plane of the head and body. I also see a slight halo on the back. If I'm way off base let's just keep my public humiliation to a minimum and chalk it up to my being a relative newbie to PS.
Either way I like the image though it is an ugly bird. Glad Benjamin Franklin did not have his way and make the turkey our national bird.
Rachel
Win7/ IE7 (I prefer Firefox but since the new BPN server I've had trouble connecting - don't know if it's just me?)
Really cute fellow - almost as handsome as my iguana portrait. Colors and sharpness look good to me. Funny, but when I started to look carefully I had the same instinct as Rachel: the head somehow looks separated from the rest of the bird. Thanks for jumping in, Rachel; I wasn't sure whether to mention it.
.. glad you guys are looking closely :) I had not noticed the halo around that back and don't think its one, who knows !!!
Rachel I do resort to such treachery at times but this is just its on head/body combination ... do clearly see what you mean :)
What I was trying here at the suggestion of Axel was posting without converting the color from Adobe 1998 RGB to sRGB Most of the time when they are not converter colors come out lifeless and flat and you get lost of complaints. Now with the new color managements things look better !!
Hi Alfred,
Well I got this all wrong. I've just posted another Turkey and thought I had done the same as you, I haven't, but I'd still be interested in how it looks to you all. Sorry for any confusion
Regards
CB
I mentioned to Alfred that at some point it might not be necessary to convert to sRGB anymore since this often leads to problems that otherwise wouldn't occur. For example the red channel that often looks fine in Adobe RGB can be quite overexposed after converting to sRGB, turkeys and bills of oystercatchers come to mind. If everyone were using color-managed browsers such as Firefox and Safari, we could simply leave the images in Adobe RGB and they would look perfectly fine. Unfortunately, IE still is not color-managed and quite a few people seem to use this browser anyway.
Thanks Axel !!! .... btw might be staying with RGB :) .. .and picked the right bird for the test, its not just another pretty face :D:)
Hi Chris ... heading over to your fine bird, will make a good comparison for color, was it converted to sRGB?
Handsome fellow. Nicer than the "dogs".:) Great details and BG Al. Looks like an elephant trunk. One funky looking turkey.
Looks very good on all my 6 monitors 1920x1080 32 bit (but I see 2 sensor spots) & the head is not turned :p:);)
4x vista, 2x w7 firefox
2 samsung 24", 2 dell 24" 1 westinghouse 37" (looks really good on this one 1910x1080 HDMI) 1 laptop
The other side of the equation (attaching the color profile to the image) must also be common (or universal) in order for the color managed browser to, well, color manage the images. Unfortunately, only about half (in my random sampling) of the images posted here have the color profiles attached. So, Firefox or Safari, still cannot show the color managed image. Sigh.Originally Posted by Axel Hildebrandt
IMO, Internet Explorer should not be used to evaluate images for color as it does not color manage. I've participated in and seen many threads here (a few) and elsewhere (mostly) go south because of misunderstandings about colors depicted in un-color managed images or viewed with un-color managed browsers. I've made strange comments myself because I didn't understand this issue.
You can download an un-color managed image and bring it up in PS and assign sRGB (for instance) to see what it "should" look like assuming it was created sRGB. Alfred's turkey looks best when assigned aRGB to me (see earlier post), which if I understand you, Alfred, this is what the image was created with? It would be great (and it would have no impact on how the image looks in IE) if you attached the color profile. Then at least the Firefox/Safari users would get the benefit of seeing the color managed colors.
By the way, Firefox used to require a option to be set to get color management, but it now has it on by default. I think this change occurred within the past year (maybe year and a half).
The test for this is to post aRGB two images one with the color profile attached and one without. Then look at them in IE and in FF or Safari. In IE, the images will look the same, in FF/S the images will look different (depending on the shot subtle to substantial) reflecting the color managed image (color profile attached) and the still unmanaged image.
Cheers,
-Michael-
interesting discussion. learn something new everyday! on my 24" imac with safari the reds look a little dull and everything seems to have a slight greenish color cast. in any matter, it's one dang good looking gobbler pic!!! any there aint but 42 ways about it!!!!:D
I too am learning from this! I have always used IE, since I have used my laptop for work and they require it. Since my new desktop computer arrives tomorrow and it is going to be dedicated to my photography, do you folks have a recommendation as to which browser I should be using? Does either FF or Safari have an advantage? How about Opera?
Ian
Last edited by Ian Cassell; 06-09-2010 at 08:30 PM.
Great points Michael !! Will try posting one just like you mention .. with and without !!
Ian can't go wrong with either one .. just stay way form IE!!!
Posting Permissions
