On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Larry Colen <l...@red4est.com> wrote: > 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.
Thanks -- I'll take another look at that last one... though I will mention that the barn is over 150 yrs old... so nothing is level or straight! :) > > 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. I will admit to some hot spots on her forehead... I probably could have controlled for the window light a little better... I tried some fiddling with it in LR, but didn't feel like it looked natural... In the end, decided to let it go & call it "style". ;) > >> >> 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? When I download the full-res from flickr, it looks pretty much how I think it should... as do the thumbnails, etc on flickr... in the slideshow is where things get weird. In blogger... I'm not sure if I can retrieve the full-res file that I uploaded... When I upload, it saves the image in a set on picasa... that file when I look at it, and download it, is wacky. Too pink/red... But, when I simply upload the image directly to picasa, it seems to do ok. So, I think blogger is messing with me. From my hard drive, I can open a jpeg in firefox & safari & it looks ok... if I open it in chrome, again, too red. > 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. I'll have to get some pics organized to show off... it's about 40 x 20 (ish)... I do come up here pretty much every day & do a happy dance. Does that count? :) Thanks! -- 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.
