taken very early in the morning over the weekend. quite Cloudy and damp that morning, dunno something about rabbits , always take a snap if i get the chance.
dont know if someone can help me out here, but the colours look more saturated and slightly better looking at the JPG in Photoshop, than the same JPG looks on this forum
done some changes hope it works, i changed the setting to vivid in NX2 , and did one round of USM. i think this works alot better..
i still get the same problem though, that the images in PS , look alot more saturated and contrasty than when posted on here.
Mark
Posted by Rene de Heer on June 29, 2009 at 3:20 PM
mark, the second post is much better. Very nice image.
Rene de Heer
Hi Mark , nice Bunnie image . a few here swear by conversion to SRGB and a little USM just prior to posting on the reduced jpeg.I must admit to a couple of low level USM passes before posting but leave mine at Adobe RGB .Second image a definite improvement
This colour change thing has come up a lot lately.
Can't people just set the camera to sRGB like I do on the Nikon d200, so there would be no need to convert,or am I missing something?
Cheers
JohnR
Second image seems better to me too. I know what you refer to in the resize to post process and the difference can be significant. I have followed advice re resize for web is it the compression that affects the colour? Others who are knowledgeable in these matters will know.
John sRGB i know is more compatible, but the gamut is very small compared to Adobe 1998.
so if you want to produce the best range of colours for Print etc, then Adobe 1998 is a must,
For display on the web then you should convert to sRGB, browsers apart from firefox and possibly one other are not colour profile aware and sRGB is closest to what they understand, so why not convert to as one of the final steps for web presentation?
Second image is much more like it, maybe a lower angle with some mush could have impoved the overall image a little, he is a cute little critter though!
Discussion
11 repliesdont know if someone can help me out here, but the colours look more saturated and slightly better looking at the JPG in Photoshop, than the same JPG looks on this forum
D300
200-400 @ 400mm
1/50th
ISO250
F4
C&C welcome
Mark.G
Will leave the techy stuff to those that are more experienced than myself
Fran
i still get the same problem though, that the images in PS , look alot more saturated and contrasty than when posted on here.
Mark
Rene de Heer
Can't people just set the camera to sRGB like I do on the Nikon d200, so there would be no need to convert,or am I missing something?
Cheers
JohnR
Second image seems better to me too. I know what you refer to in the resize to post process and the difference can be significant. I have followed advice re resize for web is it the compression that affects the colour? Others who are knowledgeable in these matters will know.
so if you want to produce the best range of colours for Print etc, then Adobe 1998 is a must,
Cheers
Mark
For display on the web then you should convert to sRGB, browsers apart from firefox and possibly one other are not colour profile aware and sRGB is closest to what they understand, so why not convert to as one of the final steps for web presentation?
Brett
But you should always use Adobe 1998 in the camera.!!
Cheers
Mark