| Author |
Message |
Paulo Calafate
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Apr 08 13:09
Reply
I'm very disappointed with the color saturation of the pictures in Woophy.
I exaggerated the saturation of the color photo, in the original, and still they are very soft in the site.
Did you compare your original photos with the Woophy one?
|
TBM
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Apr 08 15:14
Reply
I do, and I find that they always loose much sharpness (I haven't experienced, however, the problem with colors our Paulo is about). I have noticed, much to my disappontment, that my pics become rather unsharp either if I let Woophy compress them, either if I compress them with Photoshop (bicubic system) before uploading. Can anybody explain that? I see some member's pics appear so sharp, of course it can be because of the quality of the camera, but my pics (as they appear before uploading) are not that bad as regards sharpness...
|
zerega
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Apr 08 15:36 - Edited by: zerega
Reply
Paulo, Loss of color saturation maybe due to all images are converted to sRGB, which has got a rather narrow color space, insufficient for pauloultracolors, o.k. for natural colours except life buoys and life rafts.
TBM, photos in the 10 to 1500 pixel width range will get super crisp with this unsharp mask treatment applied to the Lab b/w channel (don't sharpen colours!):
amount 480
radius 0.2
threshold 0
higher pixel ranges require higher radius settings. Way too much radius results in over sharpening and looks like a bad 1970ies photocopy.
A good sharpening trick for scanned analogue images is to double the size of the image, convert to lab colour, apply a little b/w gaussian noise to the colour channel, unsharp mask with a radius of 0.7 (if width is around 8000 pixel and the image came from an 100 ASA film) to the b/w channel, back to RGB and shrink the image to the original size.
|
|
TBM
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Apr 08 16:05
Reply
@zerega: thanks a lot, I will try it and let you know...
|
Ruden Fretsbo
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Apr 08 19:00
Reply
My pictures are normaly taken in sRGB and I feel the same as Paulo Calafate. Somewtimes they seem to lose some colour saturation. I didn't notice anything about the sharpness.
|
A.Miguel Oliveira
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Apr 08 20:17
Reply
Hi everyone!
Till Paulo's question, I hadn't noticed anything very much anormal with my woophy posted pics, only slight differences here and there, but not significant. I had read from an expert:
"Use Pro Photo as a work space only if you work with 16 bit per channel files. Adobe RGB(199 is the best general workspace for photography work. sRGB is fine as an output space for output when you know you are sending files to person or lab that isn't well color managed. This way I edit my pics with sRGB  . (besides I couldn't work with Pro Photo as I still don't have Photoshop; but could use Adobe RGB with Canon DPP). So maybe the problem occurs when you use another than sRGB, as Woophy converts to it as Zerega says. Neverthless, sometimes I do notice those slight changes between original and Woophy's, but not too worrying. Those times are more frequent when I post a pic taken with my DSLR Canon 20D and not so when I use my compact Leica D-Lux3 (even though Canon has a 8.2 Mpx sensor versus Leica's 10Mpx). Mainly red and brown are a bit less "strong" at Woophy, and white with less detail. The brilliance is also a bit weaker. About sharpness never noticed nothing special till... my last pic #520083 (Canon's, whose pics I have posted much less until now)! My original is really pin sharp, with very small details noticed (resolution facts?). At Woophy I also liked it, but doing the comparison at a same (big) size the difference was notorious. Anyway, I had no need to make comparisons before as the differences weren't relevant at a naked eye (maybe by the fact I firstly reported:sRGB both sides). So, Paulo, don't worry: show us your fine pics and those last ones, with nice tennis players, don't need to be so saturated . Venham mais dessas, hehe! Abraço!
Greets from Porto,
Miguel
|
|
Ruden Fretsbo
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Apr 08 20:34 - Edited by: Ruden Fretsbo
Reply
An exemple of this bad color:
This image lost a lot of color saturation while uploading it in woophy and at the same time lost a lot of interest IMO...
But it seems to mee that doesn't happen always. At least before it didn't happen.
|
TGB
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Apr 08 21:56
Reply
One thing to bear in mind when down-sizing a photo for uploading into Woophy is that the process can discard a large number of pixels, pixels = detail, therefore detail is sacrificed in the process. It may not be very evident at the average screen resolution, but is very evident when printed.
Just a thought,
TGB
|
pansa
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Apr 08 22:19
Reply
I always upload my pxs in the original format and size and let Woophy resize them Of course you loose resolution but I have no problems with the colors.
Resizing pxs always gives a loss of resolution and contrast. It might be that the conversion from YUV color space to RGB color space causes some problems. The conversion formulas are:
Y = + 0.299R + 0.587G + 0.114B
U = 0.492(B - Y)
= - 0.147R - 0.289G + 0.436B
V = 0.877(R - Y)
= + 0.615R - 0.515G - 0.100B
JPEG works with YUV for compression. I don't know how the images are stored in Woophy. Maybe Marcel can comment?
|
Geoffrey McElwaine
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Apr 08 23:10
Reply
Paulo. I've not noticed any fall off in either sharpness or colour saturation in any of my pictures - and both are important to me. To illustrate, here is a recent example -
To my eye, this is OK in both areas - and I do not use Photoshop ( relying rather on iPhoto ). My camera is a fairly standard one - a Sony Cybershot H5 - used without any filters.
Regards
Geoff. ( Geoffrey McElwaine )
|
Sergio Leitao
Member
|
# Posted: 5 Apr 08 00:47 - Edited by: Sergio Leitao
Reply
I had already made this complaint, when woophy 2.0 was launched, but i experienced this before, and as no one said anything, i thought it was just me.
Here one example:
Uploaded on woophy
Uploaded somewhere else:
cant make the photo visible so please click here
I was very disapointed because to me color were what ws making the photo... along with the model of course.
There was one or two other photos but i cant remember wich.
|
|
Paulo Calafate
Member
|
# Posted: 5 Apr 08 02:08
Reply
Sérgio, that is a perfect example. The same happens to my tennis photos uploaded here.
The colors are very, but very dim, faded, pale.
I saw your site. It's very well done. Congratulations.
É um site gratuito ou tem que se pagar? E tem limite de ulploads?
Um abraço.
|
|
Sergio Leitao
Member
|
# Posted: 5 Apr 08 02:18
Reply
È gratuito... basta teres onde alojar, se tiveres um dominio basta fazeres o download em www.pixelpost.org,
É um open source em Php/Mysql, onde tudo é gratuito, templates, modulos, e tem uma area de administração.
O melhor é para quem usa o lightroom nem precisas de ir ao site fazes o upload directamente
Se quiseres instalo-te um na boa, tenho espaço ilimitado e posso alojar qualquer dominio.
|
Bernadette
Member
|
# Posted: 5 Apr 08 15:54
Reply
Agree with you Paulo. I'v also noticed that colours were fader and paler, than on my originals. I tough it was because I change my camera. (But normally for a better one) but If I compare yes, this is not a problem of camera.
But it is not with all photos, may be depending of colours... will try to observe.
A pity, because I don't like to "arrange" too much things like saturation and contrast with PSP before posting and try to post the photos the most closed to the original.
May be Joris or Marcel have an explanation (I recognize that I tried to understand all your advices oon this topic guys, but... very difficult for me...... And I guess this is not only english language which is the cause... sorry)
Have a nice WE
|
joris
Moderator
|
# Posted: 5 Apr 08 16:58
Reply
we will take a look at it
Joris
|
gumer
Member
|
# Posted: 5 Apr 08 23:38
Reply
Paulo, I think that there isn't change on colours or it's very soft. I don't notice on my pictures.
|
|
Paulo Calafate
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Apr 08 17:52
Reply
Thank you to everybody for the informations. But, I use the same procedure to upload the photos from the beginning and now I see that the colors are much more softned... at least, my photos.
Sérgio, gostava mesmo de saber mais pormenores sobre o photolog. Há ali coisas que para mim são chinês. Falas em domínios, open source, etc... o que é certo é que eu não domino essa treta.
É que já não tenho muita paciência para estes sites com votações, classificações e comentários. Tentei fazer um site através do google, mas, tem limite de uploads e eu enchia aquela porra num instante. Este, onde tens as tuas fotos, parece-me ser impecável para o que eu pretendo.
Um abraço.
|
Viviane
Member
|
# Posted: 9 Apr 08 01:15 - Edited by: Viviane
Reply
Sergio, about the kids portrait: that is is a huge difference and it really ruins the fantastic photo! On Woophy I did not really care much for it, rather dull and not cris at all...The original on the site is breathtaking beautiful! WOW
|
|
Sergio Leitao
Member
|
# Posted: 9 Apr 08 12:18 - Edited by: Sergio Leitao
Reply
@Viviane, thank you so much, for your nice comment, its really a pity, because that was a photo that i was really proud of, mostly becuse it is my daughter 
|
Online now: Guests - 2 Members - 2