Re: PESO - Dawn's Early Light

Sat, 04 Mar 2006 11:50:48 -0800 

Thanks Jostein.

Tom C.





From: Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: PESO - Dawn's Early Light
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:40:29 +0100

Thanks Tom,

I've saved your mail. <g>
It's a nice shot. On my monitor, there's not much difference between the shots. The "failed" one seems slightly more magenta in the shadows.
Considering the circumstances, I'm impressed by the absence of camera shake. Even the thought of getting up that early in the morning makes me shudder. Indoors. :-) 

----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 5:20 AM
Subject: Re: PESO - Dawn's Early Light
Yes. I offer a blanket apology to the list + a standing invitation to drop by and stay an evening or two on your way through. 

Tom C.





From: "Bob Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: PESO - Dawn's Early Light
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 20:35:21 -0600

This is what you see when you get up in the morning?
We all hate you!!!  ;-)
Regards,  Bob S.

On 3/3/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taken this morning outside the front door. I should mention that > I was 
the
> only one up yet. I saw the light from the upstairs bathroom > window upon > stepping out of the shower. I ran 'au naturel' out to the car, > got the > camera, changed lenses and took several shots. I thought that > would add 
a
> little to the image. ;-)
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4181984&size=lg
>
>
>
> The other version which was the one I failed to convert the > profile on 
is
> here:
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4181617&size=lg
>
> I hope not to hear Jack Davis say he prefers the second one > better.
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >Subject: Re: Web vs. Photoshop Colors
> >Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:48:28 -0700
> >
> >Thanks everyone.  I got it fixed thanks to your kind assistance.
> >
> >1) I still don't have a clear understanding of it though. I had > >gone 
to
> >the <Color Settings> dialog on the Edit menu. It pops up and in > >the 
> >Working Space RGB field it says sRGB IEC61966-2.1.  Seeing that, > >I
thought
> >the image *already was* in sRGB, and I was using Save for Web as > >usual. 
> >
> >2) However, when I went to <Convert to Profile> on the Edit > >menu, the 
> >Source Space was Adobe RGB.  Setting the destination space to > >sRGB
> >(converting to) and then using Save to Web corrected the > >problem.
> >
> >So now I ask (and I'm sure this has been mentioned here before > >or I 
could
> >look it up), what is it really telling me under <Color Settings> > >when 
it
> >says the working space is sRGB?
> >
> >I'm also amazed at how little difference it has made in other > >images, 
not
> >doing the Convert to Profile step.
> >
> >Tom C.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >>Subject: Re: Web vs. Photoshop Colors
> >>Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 18:06:50 -0500
> >>
> >>As Ryan said, make sure the color space is sRGB. Then, if > >>you're using > >>PhotoShop do a Save for Web. It should come up on the Save for > >>Web 
page
> >>looking the same as your sRGB but all exif data and color space > >>info 
will
> >>be stripped. That should avoid any confusion when you put it up > >>on the 
> >>web.
> >>Paul
> >>On Mar 3, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
> >>
> >>>Tom C wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>I've been this route before... aargh.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Convert to profile sRGB, that'll expand or reduce your working > >>>gamut 
into
> >>>the web gamut and it should be exactly the same in appearance. > >>>Don't > >>>bother embedding a profile in the web image, it is assumed > >>>sRGB and 
may
> >>>be ignored.
> >>>
> >>>-Ryan
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>

Reply via email to