#2 looks great on IE. Since you tend to push your colors tend to be more vibrant, in future posts, just posting 2 images, a Firefox version and then an IE version in the initial post might save a lot of headache in explanations.
#2 looks great on IE. Since you tend to push your colors tend to be more vibrant, in future posts, just posting 2 images, a Firefox version and then an IE version in the initial post might save a lot of headache in explanations.
Jim
Thanks Jim. I really don't mind explaining things to further awareness about color management. These days I don't sweat it so much, but I know how terrible reds turn out unmanaged, so with the predominant red/magenta/orange here I thought it good to mention. Also in post, because I knew how this might be displayed on other systems, I was careful to pull back a little.
Mark Metternich wrote:
Thanks Chez. I don't want this to turn into a typical, drawn out, photographer discussion/argument about color management and all that, but I just looked at the image through IE and (as I assumed) it is a different world altogether on my monitor. As I mentioned above:
"Lastly, reds are always the worst color management issue for web (in terms of accuracy). If you are on a newer, calibrated monitor (I calibrate to 2.2 gamma, 6500 white point and 120 candelas) and on Safari or Firefox it should be pretty close".
This could be the culprit. Reds are always a pain in the yang, and rendered very differently on different systems....Show more →
No...
You process your images to the point that they are rather 'hot.' Not quite "I'm Peter Lik, my slider goes to 11!" hot, but pretty close. When people mention the saturation, you effectively accuse them of not calibrating their system properly. Why not simply acknowledge, "Yes, I know. That's what I want to do with my images." and leave it at that?
(Firefox, viewed on an old high end Trinitron, with 'pretty close' system calibration. None of your colors are blocked, but they are, by any measure, _rather_ intense.)
Do you by any chance have a version sans the motion induced in the clouds?
While I like the way the motion in the clouds and water really isolates the mountain and makes it the unquestioned primary subject of the image, I'm also left wondering how the shot would change if some big puffy cotton balls full of color were part of it.
It's a mighty fine image either way. And sure does make me want to add Glacier NP to my 'must see' list.
You process your images to the point that they are rather 'hot.' Not quite "I'm Peter Lik, my slider goes to 11!" hot, but pretty close. When people mention the saturation, you effectively accuse them of not calibrating their system properly. Why not simply acknowledge, "Yes, I know. That's what I want to do with my images." and leave it at that?
(Firefox, viewed on an old high end Trinitron, with 'pretty close' system calibration. None of your colors are blocked, but they are, by any measure, _rather_ intense.)
There are more than a couple of people who have replied so far that have said that the first image looks good and the second too mute. It is a fact that when I go to Internet Explorer, on my system (as described above) the first original post looks nuclear (think "my slider goes to 14"!) and nothing like I intended, or looks like on my Safari or looked like in my Photoshop. So, I am simply clarifying about that for those who may see it in those conditions. My studies of color management have led me to believe that reds/magenta's are usually the worst culprits, so I bring it up on this one. Since this image pretty much exemplifies the extremes of the issue (problem) I think it may be a good thing to be aware of and mention. That's all.
I too am calibrated to 2.2g, 6500 wp and 120c (Spyders recommendations) and on Safari and Firefox the original image looks great! The second version desaturated.
Yet as you mentioned, on Internet Explorer it looks extremely different, with the first image too saturated and the second more normal. Wow, what an enormous difference on different systems! What a pain reds are in color management as you said above! Thanks very much for the heads up on the sometimes vast differences.
Great shot and always looking forward to seeing more of your work.
Thanks Nick. Just curious, are you on a wide gamut monitor? Sometimes, I think that may also play into the equation. The Dell Ultrasharps are (which I use).
Mark. Great shot. Really like the comp and choice of the long shutter. FWIW, I'm on a Dell monitor and Chrome browser. I'd personally like to see a shot between the two, but closer to the first. Good stuff!
Mark Metternich wrote:
Thanks Chez. I don't want this to turn into a typical, drawn out, photographer discussion/argument about color management and all that, but I just looked at the image through IE and (as I assumed) it is a different world altogether on my monitor. As I mentioned above:
"Lastly, reds are always the worst color management issue for web (in terms of accuracy). If you are on a newer, calibrated monitor (I calibrate to 2.2 gamma, 6500 white point and 120 candelas) and on Safari or Firefox it should be pretty close".
This could be the culprit. Reds are always a pain in the yang, and rendered very differently on different systems....Show more →
But the issue I see is that I view a bunch of other images posted here on FM and other sites and they don't seem over saturated...so I cannot see it being put solely onto IE. In general, I think you like to push the saturation button, and tht is fine, but I am saying it is too much for me. Nothing to do with IE, but everything to do with over saturation, at least for my likings. That is OK as long as that is what you are after.
Great shot! Definitely love the long shutter and can't wait to put my big stopper to use. I still have trouble committing the vast majority of sunset colour time to getting a single shot incase it isn't perfect though. However, I guess the reward does outweigh the risk seeing this shot!
Both shots are beautiful, Mark. The first looks oversaturated in the color on the mountain (is that Sinopah?) and the second one looks undersaturated. Either way the shot is still wonderful. I can't wait to go back to Glacier in September for a photography workshop.
chez wrote:
But the issue I see is that I view a bunch of other images posted here on FM and other sites and they don't seem over saturated...so I cannot see it being put solely onto IE. In general, I think you like to push the saturation button, and tht is fine, but I am saying it is too much for me. Nothing to do with IE, but everything to do with over saturation, at least for my likings. That is OK as long as that is what you are after.
Hi chez. I'm totally ok with people thinking an image of mine is over-saturated, or over saturated for their liking. In recent years, generally I have been backing down a bit. I was just mentioning the red/magenta conundrum for the reasons previously stated. I sincerely appreciate your feedback.
Ylwstonegirl wrote:
Both shots are beautiful, Mark. The first looks oversaturated in the color on the mountain (is that Sinopah?) and the second one looks undersaturated. Either way the shot is still wonderful. I can't wait to go back to Glacier in September for a photography workshop.
Kristine
My impression as well. I'm viewing in Chrome on a calibrated IPS display. But regardless, it's a triumph of a photo. The location of the moon gives this one that extraordinary sense of timing that separates the best from the rest.
When people mention the saturation, you effectively accuse them of not calibrating their system properly. 
Why not simply acknowledge, "Yes, I know. That's what I want to do with my images." and leave it at that?
Good stuff!