Notice: Undefined index: Bumped in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/functions_2021_i.php on line 1850
Notice: Undefined index: SecondBoardID in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/functions_2021_i.php on line 1851
Notice: Undefined index: LatestPoster in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/functions_2021_i.php on line 1852 Landscape Photographer - Photography - FM Forums
Yeah, it looked fine on my normal cheap monitor at work, but at home on my wide gamut display using firefox it is nuclear. Definitely a color management issue.
Sunny Sra wrote:
Spent a few days in Zion and Bryce. It felt great heading out somewhere after almost a year. The conditions in Bryce were much better (snow, rain, hail, thunder, fog, wind...) vs Zion (some clouds, mid 70s..clear days mostly). I spent 2 days shooting the watchman at sunset, this was my first time there so i experimented with some different glass.
5d III 45 TSE
i think this one was 24 shots.
Lots of detail in this one, what you don't see on the web version is the tiny black bird with red marking sitting on the rock towards the bottom of the frame.
Color management may be iffy. in PS it looks great, print looks great. On the uncalibrated monitor it looks good, however on the dell U3011 and NEC 3090 the reds and greens are a tiny bit hot.
edit 2: Toned down the greens for web. Remove most of the CA (thanks Jim)...Show more →
I have one from last fall and obviously there is not much green other than late fall conifer which is pretty drab. But my reds turned out just like your top image. The foreground sand was not as bright however. But I did not have a reflecting sky, my sky was plain blue.
I am viewing on a Calibrated NEC2690. They look fine on Safari and Chrome. Perhaps one difference is I have mine calibrated at 80 cd/mm^2
peteygas wrote:
All three versions look totally different.A calibrated is a MUST
It is calibrated. The Print matches the screen, the web presentation is going to look different and over saturated on wide gamut monitors. On uncalibrated monitors it looks fine.
andyjaggy82 wrote:
If you imbedded an SRGB tag, and the viewer is using Firefox/Chrome/Safari, it should look correct on wide gamut monitors as well.
Hey Andy,
Save for Web converts to sRGB profile, so the tags are already there. There are countless threads about it. Check Steve Perrys post on page 1. Its ok..no biggie...just desat for web going forward.
If i removed the 1st image and just leave the 2nd one..no one would know.
Thank you
May 15, 2013 at 04:17 PM
Charlie Shugart Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
It's an excellent image, for sure, Sunny.
I've been on the bridge dozens of times, and the reds are sometimes as rich as what you have in #1. Hard for some to understand- but true nevertheless.
I like the colors of the first one (although not the greens).
The desat version ... not so much any of the colors.
But this ain't no (sic) exact science- calibrations or not .
Charlie
excellent view and a great shot. The desat version looks better for the web. Have you tried tony kuyper's luminosity and saturations masks ? If not, I highly recommend it.
ben egbert wrote:
Very nice, and you choose a good time, I was there a few weeks back and the leaves were just starting to show. Love the color and I know how vibrant these greens can be in spring. This is also a great sunrise location.
Ben,
Thank you for the feedback. I should've shot the sunrise here too, instead i ended up at the canyon view area.
.
What do you mean by "24 shots?" Thanks.
It looks great, but as you pointed out, the greens look way too green here (and I don't have either of those monitors