Yes, the original has a very slight color cast.
The rest, 'de gustibus non disputandem' applies. ;-) It was a quick
edit anyway. I'm more interested that you can see the differences
clearly. They're small.
Godfrey
On Oct 6, 2005, at 3:19 PM, John Forbes wrote:
I think some of the details, the eyes especially, look better in
your version, but the hair and the jacket, IMO, look better in the
original. I still prefer the original overall, though it also
seems to have a very slight colour cast, or is that my
imagination? Perhaps my left eye is bloodshot.
John
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 22:13:41 +0100, Godfrey DiGiorgi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 6, 2005, at 2:46 AM, John Forbes wrote:
It's always interesting when people tweak other people's photos.
In this case I prefer the original; Godfrey's version seems much
too bright, and it emphasises the slightly washed out
highlights. Perhaps I need to look at the calibration of my
monitor.
I went to look at the two pictures together on the calibrated
monitor again, just to be sure I didn't post the wrong file.
Figured I'd run a composite ... this is a screen capture of the
two photos, opened in the same browser, to which I added a
histogram showing the pixel values on each of the images.
Original on the left, my edit on the right:
http://homepage.mac.com/godders/Hailey_BW-g-ss.jpg
You should be able to see that the two images' highlights are
virtually identical, the work I did was to open up just shadow
values. This is an sRGB tagged JPEG rendering so the differences
should be clearly apparent if you use a browser that honors profiles.
Godfrey
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
