First thanks to all those that answered!
Before commenting a little on the replies, I'd like to make a few
observations:
(A) Indeed I've "overdone" the saturation (or "chromacity" how
it's named in RawTherapee's LAB panel), but not by too much,
because...
(B) Because I think I've stumbled upon an out-of-gammut
nightmare... After soft-profing the pictures in Gimp (by using the
monitor, from a Lenovo X1, profile as a printer profile) I've
concluded that all the red roses are way out of the monitor's gamut,
for both variants. Thus one potential source for wrong colors could
be the monitor capabilities... (Initially I've processed the images
on an full sRGB gammut Dell monitor...)
(C) However the nightmare then morphs into a "color-managed"
madness, because it seems that looking at the variant `a` without a
color-managed application the water drops are nice and "sparkly";
however once you enable color management (especially on a monitor with
a smaller gammut than sRGB) the roses start to turn purple, and the
water drops lose blend into the petals. However variant `b` is a
little purple-ish with or without color management (due to the
mentioned oversaturation). (The embedded profiles are sRGB "standard"
for `a` and sRGB-with-black-scaling for `b`.)
BTW, image `a` was the `dcraw` one, and `b` was the "over-processed" one.
Now some comments below.
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Darren Addy <pixelsmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I very much prefer version -a.
> Look at the water droplets on the in-focus rose (front petals). On -a
> you can see the highlights from the sky. In -b they just turn into
> pink (almost single color) blobs.
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Bruce Walker <bruce.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Darren: -a version is better. The reds look oversaturated
> and blown out in -b.
I'm guessing that your observations are mainly caused by the
points expressed above.
However you are both right and I should have payed more attention
to the water drops (which I've completely ignored during
post-processing) as they are an important element in the image.
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Eric Weir <eew...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Thus I would like some help in this matter: do you think I've
>> overdone the "fine touches"?
>>
>> http://data.volution.ro/ciprian/bdf753de58c560bc/747077f330c992ad-a.jpg
>
> I like this one. In the other the subject seems isolated, just hanging in the
> air.
In fact, making the rose pop-out of the monitor is exactly what
I've wanted to obtain, by lowering the saturation and brightness of
the background and raising that of the foreground.
However it seems I've overdone in this respect also. :)
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Rick Womer <rwomer1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I surmise that the first one had the adjustments made. I like it better,
> though both are beautiful.
>
> Both files are very large, though, and almost completely fill my
> 1200-pixel-high 24in monitor. For the sake of people using laptops (and
> phones!), it's good to keep pix to about 700 pixels high, 120 pixels/inch,
> and about 250K overall.
I'll take the image size comment into consideration for the next time.
Thanks all,
Ciprian.
--
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.
