This is just a test of ImageShack and Photobucket image color..

I just want to compare the color reproduction I get from ImageShack and Photobucket.

The first image is uploaded from ImageShack. The second from PhotoBucket.
Obviously the size is a little different. I resized using ImageShack's built in resize function. This is the same photo that was uploaded directly and used in my venustum thread

http://www.slippertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18544

I would be interested to see other people do the same and post the results in this thread with your comments about the results for your own photo.

I think it's clearly to see that in the first photo the colouration is more intense, at least the red quota is higher than in the second one.
But in my eyes the second one looks more natural than the first one.

GuRu said:

I think it's clearly to see that in the first photo the colouration is more intense, at least the red quota is higher than in the second one.
But in my eyes the second one looks more natural than the first one.

Click to expand...

The first is actually much closer to the color of this clone, a particularly intensely colored one.

Wonderful plant!

Try it again but don't resize the image or resize both for a quality comparison. When an image is resized things change in that image so it makes it difficult to compare the 2.

It looks like when you downsized the first image the resizer threw out some detail. Look at the solid black background then look at the background on the larger image and notice that it has gray detail in it. The gray pixels are gone in the resized image. That makes the colors look more intense. But the resizing also throws out pixels in the flower colors as well so that all of the detail recorded by the camera is no longer in the picture.

Not necessarily a bad thing, just different. I actually like the smaller image best.

As per Lance's suggestion, I resized the photos to the same size. There is still a striking difference in color intensity and contrast. The first photo (ImageShack) is much closer to the original raw photo and the plant.

The difference is pretty amazing. I use Photobucket and to be honest have never noticed any difference between the photobucket photo and the raw photo. So I don't understand why yours is so different.

David

Here is another example. The photo of Suzanne Decker was resized in Photoshop, copied to desktop, uploaded to ImageShack and then Photobucket. The first image is much closer to the original photo and flower. I don't understand what is going on!

Check the files sizes of the 2 different pictures. The photobucket image is a smaller file size. Just a little bit but that means they are resizing the image. Probably to conserve storage space they are down grading your image quality.

I think it's all in the software used to make JPEGs. That's why I like to use Photoshop -- it's a known quantity to me, and if there are mistakes in the photo, they are mine.

Chuck said he did use photoshop to resize the image and they are both the same file he uploaded. So they should both be the same if both imageshack and photobucket are of equal quality.

SlipperFan said:

I think it's all in the software used to make JPEGs. That's why I like to use Photoshop -- it's a known quantity to me, and if there are mistakes in the photo, they are mine.

Click to expand...

So Dot, the photos I see of yours here are wonderful. Are you happy with the image you see here of you photos? Can you run through the uploading process you use? I would appreciate it.

to me it looks like in both cases, the first image is always over-saturated a hair and the second one slightly under-saturated. I notice this by looking at the greens in both cases on the leaves; they look too strong to me. not that some paphs don't have a lot of green, it's just the saturation that is too intense at least on my monitor.

I haven't used photoshop to edit my images in a long time; when I do the color and saturation seems to get too intense and out of whack but when I just use the canon photo pro software the colors look more natural. It shouldn't be that way, wish I knew why it happened..

cnycharles said:

to me it looks like in both cases, the first image is always over-saturated a hair and the second one slightly under-saturated. I notice this by looking at the greens in both cases on the leaves; they look too strong to me. not that some paphs don't have a lot of green, it's just the saturation that is too intense at least on my monitor.

I haven't used photoshop to edit my images in a long time; when I do the color and saturation seems to get too intense and out of whack but when I just use the canon photo pro software the colors look more natural. It shouldn't be that way, wish I knew why it happened..

Click to expand...

When use use photoshop to adjust your images what do you do?
You have complete control of the saturation so just turn it down a until it is correct.

If you use the auto adjust feature of any program it will usually add saturation because that usually makes the picture pop out and look prettier. Prettier is what most people want to see in their pictures rather than simple reality.

gonewild said:

When use use photoshop to adjust your images what do you do?
You have complete control of the saturation so just turn it down a until it is correct.

If you use the auto adjust feature of any program it will usually add saturation because that usually makes the picture pop out and look prettier. Prettier is what most people want to see in their pictures rather than simple reality.

Click to expand...

I agree. With Photoshop, you have total control over what colour or saturation levels you desire. It is the user who determines these levels, not the software.

I personally think Photoshop is just an amazing piece of software. What you can do in CS5 Raw is just incredible. Just a matter of getting on top of it all.

David

cnycharles said:

I haven't used photoshop to edit my images in a long time; when I do the color and saturation seems to get too intense and out of whack but when I just use the canon photo pro software the colors look more natural. It shouldn't be that way, wish I knew why it happened..

Click to expand...

It all depends on two things: 1) whether your monitor is calibrated and what it's calibrated to, and 2) how the software you use handles color. If I use photoshop to edit a photo and take it into another Adobe application, the color pretty much stays the same, now that Adobe has calibrated their software packages together. But if I take that photo into another program, like Word, it may look different, especially if I print it with Word as opposed to printing it in Photoshop or, for instance, Adobe Reader.

Chuck said:

So Dot, the photos I see of yours here are wonderful. Are you happy with the image you see here of you photos? Can you run through the uploading process you use? I would appreciate it.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I've actually only seen one of my photos that I thought was different after I posted it from Photobucket. I don't think I do anything out of the ordinary. After editing the photo in Photoshop, I save it as a Photoshop file on my computer. Then I resize it, for posting here typically between 1.40 - 1.60 Mb. Then I use the "Save for Web & Devices command under "Save", pick .jpg as the file format and 40% for the compression level. I save that to my computer, also. Then I go to Photobucket and upload it, already sized and saved as a JPEG. That way, Photobucket doesn't do anything to the file, except store it.

Just a note: I very very rarely save the original file as a JPEG only. JPEG is a "lossey" file format, meaning the more you compress it, the more information is lost forever. That format uses algorithms to "bring back" the information lost by compression, but that means it is just averaging pixels to make it look OK. The information that is lost in compression is just plain gone. And NEVER save a jpeg over a saved jpeg because every time you save a jpeg over jpeg, more information is lost. Photoshop, on the other hand, does compress, but does not lose information. It's called lossless compression.

Hope that helps.

Thanks for your reply, Dot. At first glance I can see that you do a couple of things to apply more control to the process. When I get a little time in the next couple of days I'll have a closer look. You obviously have studied the progams and have this under control.

Thanks again,

Chuck

I normally use Photobucket but I thought I'd open an Imageshack account to compare. The first photo is Photobucket while the 2nd is Imageshack. There certainly is a difference between the two, although subtle. My background is jet black, so unlike yours there is no difference here. But the flower colour is different. To me, Imageshack is much more faithful to the original. It just seems to be a straight copy. The difference is with Photobucket. The second photo is the correct size. So Photobucket is reducing the size of the photo. But it also seems to be doing something to the colour/saturation levels as well.

David






Uploaded with ImageShack.us

On my moniter they look the same, no difference

In the smaller image (photobucket?) the image has less contrast and or less saturation. There is also a loss of detail as you can see by looking at the tiny hairs on the stem. The detail loss may only be a result of the loss of contrast.
When the contrast is lowered it in effect takes away the quality of the light captured in the photo so it looks dull compared to the original.