Spring

[Lincs1]

Virginia Water, taken last weekend, liked the vibrant spring colours



Comments welcome

Lincs1

[Yan Zhang]

Dear Lincs1,

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.

Regards,

Yan

[milleniummuppet]

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.

[Lincs1]

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

Lincs1

[Steaphany]

Having been comfortable with Firefox, I'm curious about the referenced:

contrast between Safari and Firefox

Did I miss the prior conversation ?

[crisscross]

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.

[Lincs1]

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.

Thanks Chris for the encouragement,, colour on the day every bit as good as autumnal displays

LIncs1

[Davey]

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.

[Lincs1]

Thanks Davy for your reply, I'll have a look slightly larger

Lincs1