The last couple of images I posted were HDRs processed with Photomatix. I probably did not need the HDR processing for either of those images. I remembered an older image where even a +/- 2 ev HDR was not even close to covering the dynamic range. Even the human eyes had difficulty coping with the dynamic range. It took a few minutes to adapt to the darkness of the canyon and then after looking back at the entrance the dark vision was gone and it was hard to see the rough trail. Although a 2 ev HDR did not cover the range it seemed to work fairly well and a larger bracket might look even less real.

This is a spooky little dead end canyon on the Burr Trail a few miles east of Boulder. The canyon is easy to find but there was no sign and I don't know the name of this canyon.

Hi Jim. Hard to know what this looks like in person, these canyons can get really dark. I have driven the Burr road but never did any hiking. I am very aware of those copper slabs and you know how much I like them.

I had to go to Safari to see this correctly. Looked off in Chrome, but can't see any issues in Safari with respect to color. By that, I mean the color is believable and the exposure, while obviously showing greater DR than unassisted photography, does not exceed what the eye might be able to adapt to.

This sort of view strikes me more of an "I was there" shot. Not sure the scene itself lends itself to a great image.

Ben, thanks for the response. I am also curious about the results with different browsers. Do you understand what is happening with this issue?

I often see my images looking different when I view the same resized image on my computer versus the same file viewed on the internet. In my case I am still using IE. I think I should download one of my uploaded images and then compare them with the same photo viewer. In theory they should look the same.

Jim, I am out of my element explaining this so I will repeat what I have heard. The problem is most pronounced on a wide gamut monitor browsing an image with colors above sRGB on a non color aware browser. What I have read is that the out of gamut colors get assigned random values. But what I normally see is over saturated colors.

The problem is less evident with sRGB monitors, and since I don't use one much, I don't have much experience.

If I view an image that looks over saturated on my WD monitor in a non color aware browser and then view on my laptop the viewing angle issue swamps color aware issue.

Seems like you would want to save your big wide gamut monitor for your own processing and use a more standard sRBG monitor for internet viewing.

I did retrieve an image I had previously uploaded. I got back the exact same file when I downloading back from the internet.

I keep hoping the internet will grow up. Browsers will be color aware, jpg and 8 bit will be obsolete and we will post in at least ARGB at 2500 or so wide and view on WG monitors.

ben egbert wrote:
I keep hoping the internet will grow up. Browsers will be color aware, jpg and 8 bit will be obsolete and we will post in at least ARGB at 2500 or so wide and view on WG monitors.


My wife keeps hoping I'll grow up ... figure the odds on either happening anytime soon.

Of course, there is another approach to color gamut issues.

I like this shot (colour version) ... looks ominous with the lines leading from the left to the dead tree to the grey clouds behind.

(viewing on a Nexus 7 tablet using Chrome browser)

You are really treating us to quite the tour.
Colors look good, lighting believable, but the sky does not look right, especially near the top. First it looks mottled, although that could be the way the clouds were.
Second, there are some halos around the canyons edge visible in the sky against the darker clouds and leaving oddly shaped gray masses alongside the edge, more noticeable on the left.
Without going into all the color theory, I use a wide gamut monitor, process in the widest possible color space, save for web as jpeg with an sRGB profile tagged, and view in Firefox, which is color-managed.
Scott

HiredGoon wrote:
I like this shot (colour version) ... looks ominous with the lines leading from the left to the dead tree to the grey clouds behind.

(viewing on a Nexus 7 tablet using Chrome browser)

Hey missed this yesterday, been wondering how you were doing. You ought to show your False Kiva shot.

sbeme wrote:
You are really treating us to quite the tour.
Colors look good, lighting believable, but the sky does not look right, especially near the top. First it looks mottled, although that could be the way the clouds were.
Second, there are some halos around the canyons edge visible in the sky against the darker clouds and leaving oddly shaped gray masses alongside the edge, more noticeable on the left.
Without going into all the color theory, I use a wide gamut monitor, process in the widest possible color space, save for web as jpeg with an sRGB profile tagged, and view in Firefox, which is color-managed.
Scott
Thanks. Before I read your comments I decided to fix the background including the halos and blotchy sky. I have a slow internet so I am not going to try to post the new version

ben egbert wrote:You ought to show your False Kiva shot.

Well, I'm just the monkey behind the camera. You did all the magic in photoshop. And I think CamperJim's recent False Kiva image is a much nicer view of this oft-shot icon anyway.