DSLRUsers.com

Updated version:


I took the photo at Monarto Zoo in SA - in an enclosure where you can get reasonably close (compared to in the wild).

What do you think?

I am not happy with colour temperature/tones in this image, at least when it's displayed in a web browser. I am still having problems with Aperture getting exported JPGs looking as they should.

After reading the thread on soft porn, I really enjoyed your title. You forgot to mention it was naked though

lovely photo BTW.

phillipb wrote::lol:

After reading the thread on soft porn, I really enjoyed your title. You forgot to mention it was naked though

lovely photo BTW.

Thank you and sorry about the mislabelling. I have altered it now.

Sorry I can't resist this humour after debates like what we saw in the other thread.

It looks a little soft to me.

The subject, not the image.

WB looks fine, but my monitor at the orifice is uncalibrated.

The image looks soft on my monitor. Was it sharpened at all?

White balance looks a bit too magenta to me.

ATJ wrote:The image looks soft on my monitor. Was it sharpened at all?

White balance looks a bit too magenta to me.

Only very slightly sharpened. I've recently started using Apple's Aperture software, and while I am very happy with the way it behaves exporting images to JPEG has been a bit strange (in that colour tones change a bit and sharpening seems to take less effect).

It does look a bit magenta for me as well in my web browser, but in Aperture it looks different (warmer so the yellows come out looking better).

I will do some more investigation into the export feature to see if I can improve my JPG output.

Oli - looks a little soft on my (calibrated) monitor and the WB seems a little warm to me. I do like the bokeh though. Care to share with us what aperture u had and the lens?

I was at Monarto 6-7 weeks ago and Ive got almost the exact photo.
I think its a little too light. These are a light grey, and I found that they seemed to wash out when in the sun, but the greys in their coat should be a little darker.
I was there about 4:30 in the afternoon, and I got my best balanced photos from the Eastern end where they were in the shade, and I got the best photo of their tail from the Eastern end standing on the seat with the golden colouring of the tail and legs standing out.

Geoff, it looks "a little warm" in Aperture for me as well, in fact that is how I wanted it to look (brings out the colours in the animal better). But it doesn't look warm in the web browser for me. If it looks warm to you then it's probably how I had actually wanted it.

It was shot with the Sigma 100-300 at 223mm f/5.

Biggzie, cool. I actually took many photos of these guys on the day and due to windy but semi-overcast conditions the difference in colour between some of my shots are pretty amazing, since the sun kept disappearing behind clouds for a few minutes. This was shot at about 1PM.

Here's another shot, how do you think the colours look on this one?

Oli - this one is ok....just, again a little on the warm side but it's not that bad.

Oli - I love the first shot - if you feel it a little too warm, just decrease the saturation level a tad and it will fix the warming you are seeing. Also, if you run a slight smartsharpen over the first image, it comes up a treat (pm'd)
They are really gorgeous little buggers aren't they?
Hugs
Rel

I just updated the first post with a less warm and slightly sharper version of the same photo... Looks better to me.

Oli, I was there in late July, so the lighting was a little different. Here is an image straight of the camera, just resized. I will lighten it a bit, to bring out the detail of the face, and to be truthful, the grey of its back is a fraction darker here than I perceived with my eye. (not trying to hijack your thread, just give another reference of how I perceived the colouring of these little fellows)
Hope this helps some.

Yeah, I think lighting differences due to the weather on the day play a big part in how we view colours as well. Certainly looks different in your photo than in mine - then again in yours it appears the wallaby is in the shade, or not lit directly by the sun. Here's a similar photo of mine where the wallaby is in the sun (and facing the other direction).

Blown out background though (which is why I prefer the earlier ones I posted where the background is more interesting).

Yep, youve definately got more direct and bright light in yours

Now that is a totally gorgeous animal. Great photos.

Thanks Killakoala!

I worked out why my colours looked completely wrong in those photos. I was viewing the thread in Camino (a Firefox/Mozilla based browser for Mac). Apparently any web browsers based on the Mozilla engine disregard colour profiles in images - so all photos look incorrect. This goes for any Mozilla based browsers on any operating system...

I've switched to Safari and now the colours look the way they should (the same as in Aperture).

oli wrote:I worked out why my colours looked completely wrong in those photos. I was viewing the thread in Camino (a Firefox/Mozilla based browser for Mac). Apparently any web browsers based on the Mozilla engine disregard colour profiles in images - so all photos look incorrect. This goes for any Mozilla based browsers on any operating system...

Interesting... your images look identical on both Firefox and Internet Explorer.

ATJ wrote:Interesting... your images look identical on both Firefox and Internet Explorer.

Internet Explorer ignores them as well (like Firefox).

oli wrote:

ATJ wrote:Interesting... your images look identical on both Firefox and Internet Explorer.

Internet Explorer ignores them as well (like Firefox).

Here are some statistics on browser usage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_shar ... b_browsers . If the numbers are even remotely are reliable, the majority of people looking at your images are going to be using a browser that will not render your images correctly. Is that something you want?

ATJ wrote:Here are some statistics on browser usage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_shar ... b_browsers . If the numbers are even remotely are reliable, the majority of people looking at your images are going to be using a browser that will not render your images correctly. Is that something you want?

I am well aware of what proportion of people are using what browsers. I don't see the point of you bringing that up though. There is nothing that can be done to ensure any photos appear the exact way I would like on everybody's screen anyway...

From what I understand the best thing that can be done is to ensure the images have the sRGB profile assigned, since that is what most web browsers (like IE and Firefox/Mozilla based browsers) use by default.

oli wrote:

ATJ wrote:Here are some statistics on browser usage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_shar ... b_browsers . If the numbers are even remotely are reliable, the majority of people looking at your images are going to be using a browser that will not render your images correctly. Is that something you want?

I am well aware of what proportion of people are using what browsers. I don't see the point of you bringing that up though. There is nothing that can be done to ensure any photos appear the exact way I would like on everybody's screen anyway...

From what I understand the best thing that can be done is to ensure the images have the sRGB profile assigned, since that is what most web browsers (like IE and Firefox/Mozilla based browsers) use by default.

This is exactly my point.

ATJ wrote:This is exactly my point.

OK.

The only reason I really mentioned the colour thing was because it looked so wrong on my own display (inside one particular browser). I'd not have even brought it up if I had been using Safari from the word go because then I'd have seen it the way I intended right from the beginning.