PP Challenge #1

[Henrik]

I don't, I get NEF (in Firefox). (...)
Is IE8 trying to be too clever and, because there is no known association for NEF, it analyses the content and offers something close?
Have you another browser to try, say Chrome? That seems to behave itself.

Yes, meanwhile I also got the true NEF file via Firefox

I think many out there finds IE8 rather astonishing at some points. This was apparently one

Sleep tight

Regards, Henrik

[Henrik]

I would say all you need to do is re-name the file ext from the TIFF ext. to the NEF ext.

This might work. As mentioned above I solved the problem via Firefox, so now I don't want to experiment. My DxO program might get angry

The funny thing is, that the downloaded true NEF file doesn't show the picture in thumbnail mode in my Explorer as against my own NEF files. I'm using the FastPictureViewer WIC Codec Pack 1.64.

Regards, Henrik

[milleniummuppet]

Yea it wont until you re-name the extension, as it doesn't know what the file actually is.
Same was happening for some jpg's of mine just coming up as 'files' with no extension. Renamed them and it solved the problem. Just a matter of knowing what extension they were originally .

[milleniummuppet]

Ah , sorry misinterpreted that - didn't realize you were talking about the good NEF file .
Give that re-naming a go though - I wont because my band width is THAT dangerously low .

[Henrik]

Give that re-naming a go thought

This is peculiar: I did rename - a copy of - the IE8 TIFF file to NEF, and now it got a mark in the corner like my other NEF files! I also renamed the "good" Firefox NEF file from the "NEF" to "nef" to see, if that had any effect. It didn't.

DxO accepts both files as NEF/RAW.

The conclusion seems to be, that when IE8 downloads a NEF file and turns it to a TIFF file, it really still is a NEF file. As you said.

Regards, Henrik

[milleniummuppet]

thought so .
Pretty strange about the ff one though! I don't really know I just worked with the RAW.

[Sahil]

Voting Number V16

Is it just me or others can also see a Jesus like figure in the center of the Sculptor? It doesn't really show up, clearly, in the original pic.

[Doughboy]

Ok, I looked at it close and thats just too damn wierd, I can totally see Jesus lol

[Sahil]

Voting Number V17

A little darker version of the pic above.

[ScoutR]

Voting Number V18



Just trying to improve on the first one.

Hmmm, that's strange, everywhere that I did Local Contrast Enhance with USM went very dark and black. In this case on the carving - it had golden tones in both Lightroom and Elements before uploading.

[PopsPhotos]

The golden tones and browns show up just fine for me. Make sure you are viewing it in full mode. The reduction algorithms are not the best here.

Pops

[ScoutR]

Thanks Pops, looks a little better in full mode, but still not the same. Don't know if it was the sharpening or levels, I will have to play around and test. My other photos don't look the same when uploaded, but this one is different. The others just get a bit dull, this one turned black in the shadows of the carving.
LOL, it 's alway something. Tricky stuff this.

Wendy

[Dave Humphries]

Thanks Pops, looks a little better in full mode, but still not the same. Don't know if it was the sharpening or levels, I will have to play around and test. My other photos don't look the same when uploaded, but this one is different. The others just get a bit dull, this one turned black in the shadows of the carving.
LOL, it 's alway something. Tricky stuff this.

Wendy

Hi Wendy,

I think, looking at the EXIF of your version, that is because you have your Image Editor (not sure if LR and/or Elements) set to "Pro Photo RGB" and images displayed on the web. Especially in IE, or even Firefox without colour management plug-in, they will display as "sRGB" by default, which results in dull and desaturated pictures.

Unless you really need that wide a colour space, I would switch your software to sRGB if all you are currently doing is displaying online.

I am not an expert on this, Colin will hopefully jump in and correct any errors in the above.

Cheers,

[ScoutR]

Thanks Dave: I will check this out. I originally set it to sRGB based on advice here when I first joined you guys. If it got changed it was inadvertently, and I will get it set back to sRGB. It more than likely got changed in Elements. I still get pretty mixed up in there.

Thanks again. I will have a look when I get home from work.

Wendy

[RonH]

Couldn't work out how to get pic as .NEF so used the jpg version, fixed it in PSE8 (Quickfix programme) and then framed and added suitable text! Perhaps not quite what you wanted us to do but ... dare to be different! Couldn't find a 'lady chainsaw!'

[Dave Humphries]

Couldn't work out how to get pic as .NEF so used the jpg version

Hi Ron,

If you had trudged through all the posts, it might have revealed an answer
(only kidding, you shouldn't have to)

Please see this post. You can always have another go.

I have now linked to there from just below the NEF link in the first post.

Cheers,

[RonH]

Hi Ron,

If you had trudged through all the posts, it might have revealed an answer
(only kidding, you shouldn't have to)
Cheers,

Thanks Dave. I did 'trudge' through but when I downloaded the tiff file and went to save as .NEF, up popped the message 'you may not be able to read it'. So 2nd time around I braved it and its now sitting on PSE as .NEF for a workout! I also admit to being a bit distracted by the artwork of Colin

[RonH]

Voting Number V20

2nd go using the .NEF file. I 'thought' I had already placed this pic in this thread but it must have gone walkabout ... my brain I mean. Need some Vit D SUN!

[ScoutR]

Voting Number V21



Found the problem with the colour in my second attempt. Back to sRGB and got rid of the black. Amazing! - not the rework, the solution

[John C]

Voting Number V22

Here I am joining in a little late but I have been traveling a bit. I couldnt resist trying to process this photo. I did this without looking at anyone else work and took my standard approach.