Uncropped shot of a flower.

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Pete D" wrote:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2180/...19345233_o.jpg

Too over saturated.

And a bit over sharpened, but pretty.


No sarpening was applied to the shot I posted, straight from the camera
but
just resized if I remember correctly, this was posted so that others could
have a play with the cropping.

It does not appear to have excessive saturation, nor is
there any evidence of sharpening. Both comments above
are mistaking the effects of it having been reduced in
size and saved with "Quality=60", which has resulted in
JPEG artifacts and a loss of tonal gradient.

As such, it is technically inadaquate to "have a play
with the cropping". Virtually any attempt at resaving
it will result in either emphsizing the existing
artifacts at a minimum, or adding even worse.

Repost it, perhaps reduced in size if you must, but with
quality set to 100.

OK Floyd, spill the beans: how the heck do you know that?
But still: I feel the color is not natural.


--
Sosumi

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
et...
Pete D wrote:
"just bob" wrote
"Sosumi" wrote
"Pete D" wrote i

All the artistic types can do what they like with it and not tell me
off because they did not like the way I cropped it.

Enjoy and post your results soon.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2180/...19345233_o.jpg
Too over saturated.
And a bit over sharpened, but pretty.


No sarpening was applied to the shot I posted, straight from the camera
but just resized if I remember correctly, this was posted so that others
could have a play with the cropping.

I'm pretty sure flickr adds sharpening.

Here's my take on the crop: http://edgehill.net/temp
The lines of OOF circles in the background looked distracting to me. I
desaturated the yellows to tone down the green a little. The flower
(Cosmos) is not really oversaturated, those can be very brilliant, and
there is still plenty of detail in the petals. One thing though: your file
is in AdobeRGB so I converted my copy to sRGB.

aRGB, Damn it, thanks for that, I bet the setting has reset at sometime
because I never use aRGB, either that or Lightroom has done it.

"Pete D" wrote in message
...

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
et...
Pete D wrote:
"just bob" wrote
"Sosumi" wrote
"Pete D" wrote i

All the artistic types can do what they like with it and not tell me
off because they did not like the way I cropped it.

Enjoy and post your results soon.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2180/...19345233_o.jpg
Too over saturated.
And a bit over sharpened, but pretty.


No sarpening was applied to the shot I posted, straight from the camera
but just resized if I remember correctly, this was posted so that others
could have a play with the cropping.

I'm pretty sure flickr adds sharpening.

Here's my take on the crop: http://edgehill.net/temp
The lines of OOF circles in the background looked distracting to me. I
desaturated the yellows to tone down the green a little. The flower
(Cosmos) is not really oversaturated, those can be very brilliant, and
there is still plenty of detail in the petals. One thing though: your
file is in AdobeRGB so I converted my copy to sRGB.

aRGB, Damn it, thanks for that, I bet the setting has reset at sometime
because I never use aRGB, either that or Lightroom has done it.


I have just checked and Photoshop is reading that as sRGB, all my settings
are sRGB for Lightroom and CS3. How are you ckecking the data?

Cheers.

Pete

Pete D wrote:

I have just checked and Photoshop is reading that as sRGB, all my settings
are sRGB for Lightroom and CS3. How are you ckecking the data?

Sorry, my mistake. I loaded into PS as "don't color manage" without
noticing, then when checking before exporting, PS assumed my default
aRGB as the source color space.

BTW here's an example of losing detail from over-saturating:
http://edgehill.net/California/Bay-A...2-29-08/pg1pc2
Look in the stem, especially if you click for the full pixel crop. That
was an experiment doing closeups with an old 500mm f/4.5 lens which
doesn't gather much color saturation so I pushed it to get closer to the
real color.

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
Pete D wrote:

I have just checked and Photoshop is reading that as sRGB, all my
settings are sRGB for Lightroom and CS3. How are you ckecking the data?

Sorry, my mistake. I loaded into PS as "don't color manage" without
noticing, then when checking before exporting, PS assumed my default aRGB
as the source color space.

BTW here's an example of losing detail from over-saturating:
http://edgehill.net/California/Bay-A...2-29-08/pg1pc2
Look in the stem, especially if you click for the full pixel crop. That
was an experiment doing closeups with an old 500mm f/4.5 lens which
doesn't gather much color saturation so I pushed it to get closer to the
real color.

Thanks. Should send this link to my older sister, she lives near there at
Pleasanton.

Cheers.

Pete

On 2008-03-01, ____ wrote:
In article ,
Chris Savage wrote:

On 2008-03-01, Pete D wrote:
All the artistic types can do what they like with it and not tell me off
because they did not like the way I cropped it.

Enjoy and post your results soon.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2180/...19345233_o.jpg

Try posting it in www.flickr.com/groups/pimpmypixels/ you're bound to
get better response there than trying to extract reasonable behaviour
here.

Then why do you feel compelled to read and post?

The eternal triumph of hope over experience.

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg

"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message news
Celcius wrote:
[]
Thanks David!
Would this be better then?
http://celestart.com/images/publiques/flower.jpg
I guess what you're saying is saturation=exxageration of the colour,
ie. too muche as compared to the original?
Marcel

Marcel,

Here is a demonstration. The image on the right has had its saturation
reduced by 30 unit (perhaps 30%) in Paint Shop Pro:

http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/flower-pair.jpg

See how the green is less intense in colouring, and the yellow of the
flower as well.

"Oversaturated" means too much colour compared to the original.

Cheers,


Thanks David

Marcel

"Sosumi" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:

It does not appear to have excessive saturation, nor is
there any evidence of sharpening. Both comments above
are mistaking the effects of it having been reduced in
size and saved with "Quality=60", which has resulted in
JPEG artifacts and a loss of tonal gradient.

As such, it is technically inadaquate to "have a play
with the cropping". Virtually any attempt at resaving
it will result in either emphsizing the existing
artifacts at a minimum, or adding even worse.

Repost it, perhaps reduced in size if you must, but with
quality set to 100.

OK Floyd, spill the beans: how the heck do you know that?
But still: I feel the color is not natural.

Download the image. Run /exiftool/ to see the Exif
data. Then blow up any section of that flower you like
with just about any viewer you like, and what you'll see
is JPEG compression artifacts around the edges of every
sharp color transition. They are distinctive, and very
different from the artifacts left by either sharpening
or application of Unsharp Mask techniques.

If the color is unnatural, perhaps that is due to such
an extreme amount of JPEG compression, which has removed
all of the fine detail in the massive areas of one color
(all the background green, the flower pedals, and all
that yellow), which I suppose makes it look a little
"plastic"? Whatever, that part isn't enough to bother
me any, but it does make the overall image boring
because the background, even out of focus, has more
variation than the main object.

I'd like to see the RAW data posted somewhere... ;-)

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

If the color is unnatural, perhaps that is due to such
an extreme amount of JPEG compression, which has removed
all of the fine detail in the massive areas of one color
(all the background green, the flower pedals, and all
that yellow), which I suppose makes it look a little
"plastic"? Whatever, that part isn't enough to bother
me any, but it does make the overall image boring
because the background, even out of focus, has more
variation than the main object.

I'd like to see the RAW data posted somewhere... ;-)

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Point me to where you want it posted and your wish is my command.

Pete

"Pete D" wrote:
I'd like to see the RAW data posted somewhere... ;-)

Point me to where you want it posted and your wish is my command.

Anywhere that I can dowload it from! Do you have a web
site?

I assume it is too big for email, so that's out.

I suppose in the worst case I could open up ftp on my
home computer long enough for you to dump it directly on
me, and then I could upload it to my website for
everyone else to play with.

What works for you?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)