[x]

deviantART

 

Comment on coiled by ~rykthia

It is very contrasty, but lots of neutral tones. I actually opened it in Photoshop and was surprised by how different (better) it looked. Much better contrast and it looked less "flat" in tone. I guess Firefox has some image display issues; it looked a lot better.

I'm a digital guy to the bone, and while it can compete with film's resolution, I'm constantly disappointed with digital when compared to film's dynamic range.

Devious Comments

It is very contrasty, but lots of neutral tones. I actually opened it in Photoshop and was surprised by how different (better) it looked. Much better contrast and it looked less "flat" in tone. I guess Firefox has some image display issues; it looked a lot better.

I'm a digital guy to the bone, and while it can compete with film's resolution, I'm constantly disappointed with digital when compared to film's dynamic range.
Really? (RE Firefox). That's interesting. I have found similar problems with windows picture viewer on my computer - actually, once I save things, I think the jpg compression might lose some detail too (maybe? I don't know enough how that all works). Anyway, ifind that my interesting textures get lost in areas that become uniformly oversaturated.

That's very, very true about dynamic range. I'm not sure what the solution is. I spend most of my photoshop time trying to recreate a nice range in my black and whites. Thus everything ends up all contrasty, but somehow it's better than uniform grey!

--
111.000 .. 011.000 .. 0100.000.110 .. 10.1011.100.10.0100.111 .. 0111.1.001.11.01 .. 0101.000.01.1110.1.101.111.10.00.11.000.01.111 .. 00.1111.11.111 .. 100.10.0100
When I open this image in Apple's Preview program, Photoshop, and view the page in Safari, the images all look the same. But it looks different in Firefox. I think Firefox isn't doing a good job at color handling. The picture's color profile is sRGB, and I bet Firefox ignores that and just assignes a Generic RGB color profile to all images it displays. I mean, if everything but FF is displaying the image the same. . . .

Apple is actually really good about color handling. I think Apple-built programs actually hand off image display to the OS and since the OS respects color profiles (if the image has one), then all Apple software will display the image the same way. I love Firefox, but it wouldn't surprise me if something like proper color handling has been ignored in the developement.

Have you played around at all with High Dynamic Range? Basically, putting the camera on a tripod and taking a bunch of pictures with different exposures, then combining those together into one image that has a huge dynamic range. Photoshop CS2 has a built-in HDR function, but I don't have CS2. In the end, you can't actually view your HDR image because its dynamic range is far greater than your monitor, but you can tone-map the image to a typical JPG and get some very cool results. Like an indoor photo where both the inside of the room and the sunny landscape outside the window are properly exposed. There are a bunch of HDR people here and lots on Flickr. Most tone-mapped pictures suck because you can get all types of halo effects, but if it's done well it's very impressive.

Site Map