Lens Flair

took this yesterday
from paynesville

DSCF8587copy2.jpg
 
epp_b and AshDav, nice ones.

2320617377_e310d7e83a.jpg


(I know that's an anoying watermark, but it's an old picture and I was just a kid :p)
 
Nomix, I'm back on my external monitor, and I can definitely see what you mean. It's pretty "yuck" on here, but it looks fine on my laptop's LCD. I'll have to remember to crank up the saturation on my laptop LCD to make up for its blandness and lacking colour rendition.

Here's a re-edited version with better colouring:

https://pic.armedcats.net/e/ep/epp_b/2009/01/15/2009-01-13_Blood_Test_Rev_01.jpg
 
Last edited:
Now it looks cold and clinical. I prefer the other version. Could be your external screen's saturation is bumped up too high.
 
This is the most opposite lock I've seen the guy give the whole weekend. I am awestruck at the way the Evo slides through corners. He put the car completely 90 degrees to the direction of drive, in a way that the car was coming directly in my direction sideways, but the 4WD somehow sorts everything out. He once went off the track for a bit and from what I saw from a bit away, all he did was put his foot down. Funny car this...

https://pic.armedcats.net/a/al/alok/2009/01/15/WinterAction_lokkydesigns-1.jpg
 
Cool shot, still. Are you using colour management in PS?

No, the image looks great in photoshop, in lightroom, and even when I save it as jpeg it looks great in Windows Photoviewer. Its only when I upload it to photobucket does the saturation drop and the image looks much more dull.
Even if I resize the image myself to meet the filesize requirement, uploading it to photobucket really desaturates and dulls the picture. Probably just how photobucket or maybe firefox handles extreme contrasts and colors of the picture.

Working on another shot of the same composition now, I'll post it in a bit since it is a new day. :D
 
I think some photo hosting sites add compression. It's possible that they may apply other changes as well.

Use PhyreFile, it rocks! :thumbsup:
 
Wow, phyrefile completely butchered the image too. As does photobucket and imageshack....I guess I just have colors that just cannot be reproduced when uploaded. Must get lost in compression. This one I'm trying to upload has some crazy vibrant colors.

Anyways here is the image:
https://pic.armedcats.net/j/ja/jayjaya29/2009/01/16/100-0484-2.jpg

This is not how the image should look, all the parts that look like a bland red/orange/greyish actually are super neon red.

HAH, I got it. Right click on the picture, save it to your desktop, then you'll see the colors I want you to see. Firefox and IE cannot I guess display the colors I have captured.
 
Last edited:
I still don't see if after I have saved it. Looks the same in IrfanView as it does in the browser. I think the Windows Picture Viewer makes contrast and tone adjustments on-the-fly.

http://img135.imageshack.**/img135/8357/20090115building10pk8.jpg

BTW, PhyreFile seems to be b0rk3d right now.
 
Last edited:
No, the image looks great in photoshop, in lightroom, and even when I save it as jpeg it looks great in Windows Photoviewer. Its only when I upload it to photobucket does the saturation drop and the image looks much more dull.

This is not how the image should look, all the parts that look like a bland red/orange/greyish actually are super neon red.

HAH, I got it. Right click on the picture, save it to your desktop, then you'll see the colors I want you to see. Firefox and IE cannot I guess display the colors I have captured.

I'd say check your color profile. Save the picture as sRGB (in photoshop use "save for web" or convert it to sRGB and then save it as you usually do) and it should look like you intended. Photoshop, Lightroom and Windows Photoviewer are aware of the picture's color profile, so they display the colors as they should be even if the image is saved as Adobe RGB. Browsers on the other hand are a different matter: Firefox 3 knows how to handle color profiles but the option is disabled as default, Safari handles them just fine (I think) and the rest (IE, Opera, Chrome etc.) don't know what the hell to do with them.

Here's a quick example: I copied your picture and pasted it as two new images to photoshop, for the left one I specified that the color profile is sRGB (which is wrong, because the image being copied was actually in Adobe RGB) and Adobe RGB for the right one. (I know, the labels in the picture show the opposite, but hold on...)

This picture shows how for example IE shows pictures with different color profiles. The one saved as sRGB looks ok, because that's the "default" so there's nothing to misinterpret. But Adobe RGB shows up bland, because these browsers can't handle color profiles.

adobe_vs_srgb.jpg
 
took this yesterday
from paynesville

DSCF8587copy2.jpg
I like it. :)

Nomix, I'm back on my external monitor, and I can definitely see what you mean. It's pretty "yuck" on here, but it looks fine on my laptop's LCD. I'll have to remember to crank up the saturation on my laptop LCD to make up for its blandness and lacking colour rendition.

Here's a re-edited version with better colouring:

https://pic.armedcats.net/e/ep/epp_b/2009/01/15/2009-01-13_Blood_Test_Rev_01.jpg
I must say I prefer this version to the previous. :)


Did a portrait this morning. It's a bit on the cock, job for the paper, the guy got a wound after falling in the sports hall, and developed a bad infection from it (bacteria in the artificial grass). Rush five minute job, but hey, it's a person nonetheless. :)

http://img108.imageshack.**/img108/6104/newkunstgress3ke8.jpg
 
Top