On 9/22/2011 12:05 PM, Christine Nielsen wrote:
Our old barn got a renovation, and lucky me (!), I got a studio space
out of the deal. It's only very recently been finished, and I'm just
starting to get a little time to play out there. The other day, i
asked my daughter to sit for some portraits -- I had to capture that
summer tan before it faded...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23028562@N04/sets/72157627605002633/with/6172516761/
Questions, comments, concerns are welcome...
That's a nice set. Of photos. I particularly like the last one, with
her jumping. Lighting, composition, energy, expression... very nice, it
even has a pretty girl in it. To me, it looks like it's cocked ever so
slightly anti-clockwise, but the bottom of the window sill looks
horizontal. Maybe my glasses are crooked.
One thing about them that I see on a lot of portraits is that the
highlights on the skin seem a bit overexposed to me, so that detail is
lost. I don't know whether this is a style thing, that it smooths out
the skin, I just have a different idea of proper exposure, or an
artifact of flickr's compressing the files down.
Now here's my question... I'm often frustrated when I see how my
photos are rendered online. My monitor is calibrated, and in the
editing process, everything seems to go just fine. I make sure I
export in srgb. Once my photos are loaded onto different websites
(blogger, picasa, flickr, facebook, etc), it's another story. I know
that different monitors might render images differently, but even on
the same, calibrated monitor that i use for editing, it seems that
different browsers (I have firefox, safari& chrome, chrome being the
worst offender)& different websites treat my images differently.
Even on flickr, just now, my images have a funky red cast in slideshow
format that doesn't show up in thumbnail/set views, and certainly
isn't the way I edited them.
Does it show up when you upload, then download the full resolution
version? I suspect that most of these online photo sites compress
files, and may be more concerned with compression efficiency than file
fidelity. They have to compress them for the smaller pictures anyways,
so they get to choose their level of compression.
BTW, what little I can see of the studio looks wonderful. Any shots of
the space rather than just using the space?
How big is it, it looks like it'll work as a dance studio, not just a
photo studio.
So... what to do? Anything? Maybe it's me... Or is this just the way
it goes??? Any thoughts are appreciated...
Thanks all,
-c
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
