Prev: See Mike its software
Next: share folder under multiple names?
From: Salmon Egg on 9 Feb 2010 02:12
In article <isw-A6E694.20365308022010@[216.168.3.50]>,
isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote:

> Isn't it more likely that the problem is a combination of gamma mismatch
> between the photo editor's screen and the viewer's, plus poor handling
> of embedded color profiles (assuming the image even has one) by many
> browsers?

Maybe I am not getting my point across.

If I were willing to edit the photos, I would fiddle around with gamma,
saturation and all those other things you can do with Photoshop. I am
just looking at a lot of jpg files. I want a simple means of improving
what I am seeing without pulling out all the stops.

Bill

--
An old man would be better off never having been born.
From: Mike Rosenberg on 9 Feb 2010 12:47
Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > Isn't it more likely that the problem is a combination of gamma mismatch
> > between the photo editor's screen and the viewer's, plus poor handling
> > of embedded color profiles (assuming the image even has one) by many
> > browsers?
>
> Maybe I am not getting my point across.
>
> If I were willing to edit the photos, I would fiddle around with gamma,
> saturation and all those other things you can do with Photoshop. I am
> just looking at a lot of jpg files. I want a simple means of improving
> what I am seeing without pulling out all the stops.

I asked you in my post if you'd tried calibrating your monitor. You
responded to something else in my post but not to that question.

HAVE you tried calibrating the monitor? It's entirely possible that
doing that will make more of the photos look right in the first place.

--
My latest dance performance <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_9pudbFisE>

Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi>
Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi>
From: Salmon Egg on 9 Feb 2010 15:06
In article <1jdncdp.iyjrll1gnwhkqN%mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> I asked you in my post if you'd tried calibrating your monitor. You
> responded to something else in my post but not to that question.
>
> HAVE you tried calibrating the monitor? It's entirely possible that
> doing that will make more of the photos look right in the first place.

To be specific, the answer is NO. Calibration will not help. For some, I
need mor contrast (gamma). For some less. For some, nothing short of
individual attention will help.

You have not answered my question: How can one get auto repeat on a
Control-Option-Command < (or >) combination?

Bill

--
An old man would be better off never having been born.
From: Mike Rosenberg on 9 Feb 2010 15:18
Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> You have not answered my question: How can one get auto repeat on a
> Control-Option-Command < (or >) combination?

No, nor has anyone else.

--
My latest dance performance <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_9pudbFisE>

Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi>
Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi>
From: isw on 9 Feb 2010 15:25
In article <SalmonEgg-F08D03.23123208022010(a)news60.forteinc.com>,
Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> In article <isw-A6E694.20365308022010@[216.168.3.50]>,
> isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote:
>
> > Isn't it more likely that the problem is a combination of gamma mismatch
> > between the photo editor's screen and the viewer's, plus poor handling
> > of embedded color profiles (assuming the image even has one) by many
> > browsers?
>
> Maybe I am not getting my point across.
>
> If I were willing to edit the photos, I would fiddle around with gamma,
> saturation and all those other things you can do with Photoshop. I am
> just looking at a lot of jpg files. I want a simple means of improving
> what I am seeing without pulling out all the stops.

And I guess I didn't get mine across:

Instead of altering the gamma for the images by changing the contrast
(which is probably not very accurate anyhow), you can easily create a
color profile for the monitor with a gamma that matches the one the
images use. Switching between profiles is just a matter of three or four
mouse clicks, and you can keep as many profiles as you like, to choose
between.

I expect it's not that, as you said, "Very few photos are posted that
are truly exposed and processed correctly", but that they *are*
"correct" when viewed on the computer used by the person who posted
them. The difference between the historical Mac gamma of 1.8 and the
usual PC gamma of 2.2 is enough to make an image which looks fine on a
PC appear very "flat" on a Mac. Setting up a color profile with a gamma
of 2.2 may be all it takes to make the images look just fine on your
computer.

If the images had proper color profiles embedded in them (and many do
not), AND if you use a browser or other photo viewer that also honors
embedded profiles (and some do not), then you might not need to do the
gamma alteration by setting up a new color profile.

Isaac
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: See Mike its software
Next: share folder under multiple names?