Re: Exposing flowers, and other saturated colors

[Igor PDML-StR]

Larry,

I've been experimenting with a few things based on the feedback I've got 
to my questions.
One thing I see for sure is there is a big discrepancy of how different 
browsers treat the colorspace of the images.


I opened one of the photos in 4 different browsers:
Firefox - SlimJet
Chrome  - Opera
And here are two screenshots showing them:
http://42graphy.org/misc/Colorspace/PhotoIn4Browsers-Firefox-1.jpg
You might be able to see minor differences (maybe not) in rendering in the 
last 3 browsers. But in Firefox it is obviously different.

That was when gfx.color_management.mode = “1” in Firefox's settings.

Now, if I change that variable value to "2", Firefox starts matching the
rest:
http://42graphy.org/misc/Colorspace/PhotoIn4Browsers-Firefox-2.jpg

I am confused, because it looks like your image is tagged as
sRGB IEC61966-2.1
So, the difference between the settings "1" and "2" should not play any 
role. (For the meaning of that variable, - read e.g. this page:

http://www.metalvortex.com/blog/2012/03/16/831.html )

I am even more confused that changing that value back to "1" didn't change 
anything. (And yes, I am restarting Firefox each time I change the 
variable value.)

To me, that tells that Firefox is glitchy in treating the tags.

I've noticed a similar inconsistency with the images I had posted, but
it was sort of "in reverse". The rendering was "wrong" when "2" was set, 
and got fixed, when I set "1". And my images also seem to be tagged 
sRGB. (If I am reading it correctly)


You can see the comparison I head for mine:
http://42graphy.org/misc/Colorspace/Flower-CalibrationComparison.jpg
On the left, is that image in FF, on the right, you see the LR.
(The variable in question was set to the default "2" at the time of the 
screenshot. Changing it to "1" made the colors look the same.)


I AM CONFUSED.


For those interested to learn more (and test their browsers),
this page describes the differences in the appearances of different 
colorspaces:

http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html
Note that after setting the variable in FF's settings, you should restart 
the program to see the effect. (At least on Windows 7.)



Cheers,

Igor




On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Larry Colen wrote:


At lunch I saw some flowers similar to the ones in the gamut/colorspace
thread and decided to do a silly experiment.  I photographed the flowers,
bracketing the exposure.  Then on my next errand to the post office I saw
some more flowers and shot some more bracketed exposure.

Artistically, these photos are crap, the low shutter speed versions have
some nasty camera blur.  However, they are posted in a flickr album in
shutter speed order from 1/8000 down to 1/40.  All shot with a K-3, ISO 100,
f/16, Tamron 18-250 at 250mm.

Some of them have my lens hood, which I used as a greycard, just as a
reference.  The only processing is quick colorbalance and a quick and dirty
adjustment of exposure in post processing.

http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157666819425355



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Exposing flowers, and other saturated colors

[Larry Colen]

Rick Womer wrote:

And your conclusion is... ?

To me, on a quick look, exposure doesn't seem to make a difference. I
suspect I would see noise if I blew up the underexposed ones, of
course.


To me, I was able to recover a lot more detail in the underexposed 
flowers. Then again, I was looking at them in lightroom at full display 
resolution rather than after flickr compressed them in downsizing.





Rick
http://photo.net/photos/RickW


On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:

At lunch I saw some flowers similar to the ones in the gamut/colorspace
thread and decided to do a silly experiment.  I photographed the flowers,
bracketing the exposure.  Then on my next errand to the post office I saw
some more flowers and shot some more bracketed exposure.

Artistically, these photos are crap, the low shutter speed versions have
some nasty camera blur.  However, they are posted in a flickr album in
shutter speed order from 1/8000 down to 1/40.  All shot with a K-3, ISO 100,
f/16, Tamron 18-250 at 250mm.

Some of them have my lens hood, which I used as a greycard, just as a
reference.  The only processing is quick colorbalance and a quick and dirty
adjustment of exposure in post processing.

http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157666819425355

--
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://red4est.com/lrc


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.




--
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://red4est.com/lrc


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Exposing flowers, and other saturated colors

[Rick Womer]

And your conclusion is... ?

To me, on a quick look, exposure doesn't seem to make a difference. I
suspect I would see noise if I blew up the underexposed ones, of
course.

Rick
http://photo.net/photos/RickW


On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:
> At lunch I saw some flowers similar to the ones in the gamut/colorspace
> thread and decided to do a silly experiment.  I photographed the flowers,
> bracketing the exposure.  Then on my next errand to the post office I saw
> some more flowers and shot some more bracketed exposure.
>
> Artistically, these photos are crap, the low shutter speed versions have
> some nasty camera blur.  However, they are posted in a flickr album in
> shutter speed order from 1/8000 down to 1/40.  All shot with a K-3, ISO 100,
> f/16, Tamron 18-250 at 250mm.
>
> Some of them have my lens hood, which I used as a greycard, just as a
> reference.  The only processing is quick colorbalance and a quick and dirty
> adjustment of exposure in post processing.
>
> http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157666819425355
>
> --
> Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://red4est.com/lrc
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Exposing flowers, and other saturated colors

[Larry Colen]

At lunch I saw some flowers similar to the ones in the gamut/colorspace 
thread and decided to do a silly experiment.  I photographed the 
flowers, bracketing the exposure.  Then on my next errand to the post 
office I saw some more flowers and shot some more bracketed exposure.


Artistically, these photos are crap, the low shutter speed versions have 
some nasty camera blur.  However, they are posted in a flickr album in 
shutter speed order from 1/8000 down to 1/40.  All shot with a K-3, ISO 
100, f/16, Tamron 18-250 at 250mm.


Some of them have my lens hood, which I used as a greycard, just as a 
reference.  The only processing is quick colorbalance and a quick and 
dirty adjustment of exposure in post processing.


http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157666819425355

--
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) http://red4est.com/lrc


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.