Motif: ______ Gallinule

Beautiful clean shot of this guy that you don't often see in the open. I'm impressed with how well the pushed Velvia handled this dark bird. Great shot Cliff.

Great image!! I can't remember seeing one out in the open like this. This still fits the motif theme, IMO. More obvious characteristics are OK too.

Beautiful capture, almost an aurora Borealis color wise !!

Velvia is a love hate thing and I LOVE it. This image is a good example of why. Just a wonderful shot in great light. The colors and saturation are outstanding. I miss velvia...

Cliff:

What saturated colors using Velvia to agreat advantage here. Sincere congratulations.

Nice light and I like the diagonal, elongated pose.

Gorgeous Cliff. The light on this beauty could not be better. I especially like the tail showing more than I'm used to seeing.

Fantastic -- IMO this fits the Motif well.

Very nice Cliff...exposure, composition, background, saturation..all first rate....My only confusion here is how we got from Provia 100 pushed one stop to many people "seeing" Velvia. Am I missing something here. :roll:

Beautiful colors here, nice shot!.

Greg Wrote:

The colors and saturation are outstanding. I miss velvia...

I told you this "digital" thing was not going to catch on.. . Youl be back.

Cliff
Glad you read the directions......afterwards or else we'd have missed this one. I think it's the first shot that I've ever seen of one out in the open. Gorgeous colors and detail....with a complementary BG. You should NOT read directions more often.

Steve S wrote:. . . My only confusion here is how we got from Provia 100 pushed one stop to many people "seeing" Velvia. . . .

Steve, same here! Guess we're all in a hurry. It does go to show, though, how good Provia can be. Arthur Morris once wrote that when opening boxes of processed slides, he couldn't tell pushed Provia from pushed Velvia without referring to his notes. I've had the same experience, though if you've shot the same subject in the same light on both films, the difference is clear.

The other thing, of course, is that once digitized, it's dueces wild on saturation, whether the original was film or digital. When I assign sRGB to an Adobe RGB image, the drop in saturation is amazing. To get the JPEG looking something like the original, I'm boosting saturation +15 to +30 in sRGB, depending on the image. In this case, the bird matches the film well, the water is slightly too blue.

I usually read the other's comments before posting mine. The first one I read was Alan's saying how well the Velvia looks pushed. LOL, Hurry is right! I love Provia too.

I still don't understand why you have a drop in saturation when converting from Adobe RGB to sRGB. I never see anything change when I convert profiles, as far as a loss of saturation, and I know you have always expressed this problem. I have been trying to figure this one out since the first time you spoke of the problem and have yet to understand it!

Greg Downing wrote:I still don't understand why you have a drop in saturation when converting from Adobe RGB to sRGB. I never see anything change when I convert profiles, as far as a loss of saturation, and I know you have always expressed this problem. I have been trying to figure this one out since the first time you spoke of the problem and have yet to understand it!

If you go to MODES > ASSIGN TO PROFILE instead of CONVERT you will see a definite drop in saturation. I used to just convert, save and post and think it was just that my Dell monitor was more saturated than most other monitors. Converting reduces the saturation too but it isn't apparent until you re-open the file. YMMV

Greg,

It's because I Assign the sRGB colorspace rather than Convert to it. Tim Gray and all sorts of people recommend the Convert command, but I don't understand why. I used to do it that way, but as you note, Convert doesn't let you see the change. With Assign, you see instantly how the image is going to look on the web, and can adjust as necessary (lots!) to make it look like the original. (There are still slight differences, especially yellow to brown, but in general, after assigning sRGB, images post very much the way they look in PS. And of course, after assigning the sRGB space, you don't want to save the change to your original file.)

P.S. Bill got there first!

Cliff, therein-lies the problem. Assigning and converting does two completely different things. The difference is not limited to just showing you the results, it simply doesn't re-map the pixels the way it is supposed to when "assigning" the profile. This is why you lose so much saturation. Assigning it only "tags' the image as sRGB, but converting it actually re-maps the colors and it's important to do this step. There is a good reason Tim Gray insists on doing this.

I suggest you try a few images by converting them and see how different the results are. FWIW when I convert I can't see a change, before or after opening the file on the web. I need not up the saturation at all after I am satisfied with the AdobeRGB version.

Neither assign or convert gives you an accurate representation of what it will look like on the web because the web uses no color management at all. It is most like sRGB but still quite a bit different. To really see what it will look like on the web you have to do a Save for WEB which strips color management and typically heavily desaturates an image in Adobe RGB, and shifts an image in sRGB toward the red end somewhat and saturates it.

As for this image, its very nice - the greens in the water may be a bit over the top but I have no idea if this is normal in Belize or not.

Greg Downing wrote:. . . I suggest you try a few images by converting them and see how different the results are. . . .

I have, I have. For many months or longer, years back, that's how I prepared JPEGs. Many times I had to go back and redo them because the colors came out very unsaturated. It was trial and error. As Bill Whala says, the conversion process does NOT accurately reproduce the original Adobe RBG color. For most of the complaints I hear from others about their images not appearing on the web as they did in Photoshop, I think "Convert" is the reason. Now that I Assign RGBs, and adjust accordingly, they always appear on the web very much as I had them in Photoshop.

As EJ notes, you don't really see the finished product until Save for Web. Most of the time, having assigned sRGB and adjusted, Save for Web looks pretty good. Using Convert, Save for Web almost always produced an image much flatter than the orginal.

Cliff,

Great shot. Wonderful colors and composition.