Helpful Posts: 0
25th April 2009, 07:13 AM
Virginia Water, taken last weekend, liked the vibrant spring colours
25th April 2009, 07:24 AM
The spring color is nice. I feel the picture could be taken at a better time of the day so that the differentiation of various colors becomes outstanding.
25th April 2009, 11:12 AM
Hmmmmm, yes definitely.
The hours around sunrise and sunset are the perfect times for photography, particularly in a case like this where more atmosphere could have been captured.
During times when the sun is highest in the sky the resultant pic has very flat light.
I love the building though =), looks as though it could be consumed by nature if it was left un-kept for long enough.
1st May 2009, 10:58 PM
It is amazing at the contrast between Safari and Firefox
Thanks for your interest
Yes it was taken at about the worst time of day, but it is not always possible to find that golden hour, but the colours really caught my attention
2nd May 2009, 01:02 AM
Having been comfortable with Firefox, I'm curious about the referenced:
Did I miss the prior conversation ?
Originally Posted by Lincs1
2nd May 2009, 09:23 PM
Not a bad time of day from the excellent result. I think the spring leaves coming colours this year are as fascinating as usual autumn leaves going ones.
Steaphany: browser comment is ongoing. Safari is fully and automatically colour managed and IMO unbeatable, in fact essential, for photo sites. Firefox was colour managed by add on, but something seemed to go wrong about a month back, but I still use it for intensive searching etc when colour is not an issue.
3rd May 2009, 10:22 PM
Thanks Chris for the encouragement,, colour on the day every bit as good as autumnal displays
Originally Posted by crisscross
3rd May 2009, 10:26 PM
Colours look great to me and using firefox (Iceweasel/3.0.7 linux). Only thing I find is it's hard to see detail and is degraded somewhat by downsizing and jpeg artifacts, at least to my eyes so it might be me.
I'd like to see the same image but perhaps a tad bigger, although original size is not practical perhaps something like 1280 wide? As for artifacts a less compressed jpeg should be fine. I find compressing jpeg images past the 8 or 9 compression mark often degrades the image for little size improvement. I think difference between 6 and 9 size wise is small compared to great visual quality difference especially where lots of detail involved. I usually stick with compression 9 or 10 for jpegs and find it does the trick and is transparent compared to full range Png I find.
5th May 2009, 05:16 PM
Thanks Davy for your reply, I'll have a look slightly larger