| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/04/2005 08:16:35 PM · #1 |
Has anyone had this problem? This photo seems to show blemishes in the version I put in my portfolio but looks perfect or at least close to it in Photoshop. I am talking about light spots on the tomatoes. I can't see them in photoshop... I want to add it to DPC Prints but it just doesn't look right on the web site for some reason. Please help.
Message edited by author 2005-04-04 20:17:21.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 08:29:54 PM · #2 |
They look great when I view them. I have noticed that sometimes they look different when saved for the web than as viewed in photoshop. I don't know why though.
Maybe someone will answer for us all.
Message edited by author 2005-04-04 20:30:38.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 08:32:22 PM · #3 |
I can see a hint of the blemishes you are referring too. More disturbingly, I see a pronounced haloing around the cherries.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 08:40:15 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
04/04/2005 08:51:45 PM · #5 |
The haloing is quite noticable, so I assumed it was intentional.
But to answer the original question directly; this site does not have a color management system set up, and as such the images are seen in the default color space of what they are being viewed in. The default color space for the web is sRGB and is what most (I would hate to say all, even though I don't know of one that doesn't) browsers display images in the sRGB colorspace. Images prepared in other color spaces will, at times, encounter slight (or not so slight) color shifts when converted to sRGB by the viewed as if they were in the sRBG color space.
The solution is to proof your images for the medium being used to present them -- which for the web would mean proofing them for the sRGB color space before the final resize and save.
Also, as the sRGB color space is based on a 2.2 gamma -- and differences between the gamma created with and the gamma viewed at also produce color shifts (most noticable are shifts in brightness) -- proofing the sRGB color space at a 2.2 gamma will be most likely to produce the least variance.
David
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 09:15:37 PM · #6 |
Well, just so you know they are tomatoes but I see the halo too and I don't know why its there to be honest with you. I only see it though it I angle my laptop to make the photo darker. I really don't know how that happened. Pretty wierd...
Originally posted by bear_music:
I can see a hint of the blemishes you are referring too. More disturbingly, I see a pronounced haloing around the cherries.
Robt. |
|
|
|
|
04/04/2005 09:33:05 PM · #7 |
ok. Now that glow is really bothering me. Is it really noticable on your monitors? Anyone know how I could get rid of it without killing the photo?
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 04:42:35 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by eostyles:
ok. Now that glow is really bothering me. Is it really noticable on your monitors? |
Yes.
Originally posted by eostyles:
Anyone know how I could get rid of it without killing the photo? |
To help prevent it, the first step would be to check the original to see if it was present there -- a backlight will produce halos, so it's possible. If not, there was some step or combination of post processing steps that created it -- quite likely sharpening.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 05:10:40 AM · #9 |
I was looking at my accidental letters entry yesterday on the web and immediately noticed that my image was not quite the same as I had prepared in terms of colour and sharpness. The image looked very slightly different when placed next to each other in PS, Windows Viewer, and MS Explorer. In particular, the contrast seemed slightly lacking in MS Explorer. Britannica's answer would explain this - thank you!
I was also wondering whether there are different qualities of decoding algorithms for Jpegs - I would assume that PS would have a high quality decoder while MS Explorer would presumably have a faster, cheaper algorithm? I would anticipate that such difference in algorithm could explain reduced contrast and sharpness in an image. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 05:14:14 AM · #10 |
I assume you amde a selection of the cherries and the stems, and worked the background separately from the subject. The haloing is an offshoot of that. Might be an artifact of gaussian blur bein applied to BG, more likely an artifact of sharpening being applied to cherries. One way to help control it is to use the feather radius effectively on the selection. Another thing you can do is shrink the selection after you make it so it's a pixel or 2 inside the boundaries of the object.
Where the halo exists, you can load the selection, shrink it a tad, and use history brush to recover the background behind it, assuming it's a sharpening halo and you're not recovering a non-blurred background. There are myriad possibilities, but in the end it's all in how precise your selection is and how you deal with the selection boundaries. Haloing is always more of a problem where you have extreme value or color contrast across the boundaries.
It's possible you used no selection and the haloing is just a USM artifact, but it's pretty "wide" for that, so....
Show us the original? it's a nice shot btw...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 06:35:39 AM · #11 |
You can listen to Robt, this is one guy who knows what he is talking about.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 09:53:32 AM · #12 |
Thanks for the detail. I guess it could have happened with the sharpness since I didn't do anything with layers or the background around the tomatoes... Its funny how many people think these are cherrys though. Thanks all for the help.
Originally posted by bear_music:
I assume you amde a selection of the cherries and the stems, and worked the background separately from the subject. The haloing is an offshoot of that. Might be an artifact of gaussian blur bein applied to BG, more likely an artifact of sharpening being applied to cherries. One way to help control it is to use the feather radius effectively on the selection. Another thing you can do is shrink the selection after you make it so it's a pixel or 2 inside the boundaries of the object.
Where the halo exists, you can load the selection, shrink it a tad, and use history brush to recover the background behind it, assuming it's a sharpening halo and you're not recovering a non-blurred background. There are myriad possibilities, but in the end it's all in how precise your selection is and how you deal with the selection boundaries. Haloing is always more of a problem where you have extreme value or color contrast across the boundaries.
It's possible you used no selection and the haloing is just a USM artifact, but it's pretty "wide" for that, so....
Show us the original? it's a nice shot btw...
Robt. |
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/18/2025 04:11:48 AM EDT.
