I do believe I have found what is eating the avocado leaves.

[JBW]

I continue to explore the Capture 1 Sony Pro and my camera setup. Sony Pro works in Adobe RGB so I switched my camera to match it. I don't know if it is wishful thinking or if there really is an improvement but i am reasonably certain it is no worse.

[Shadowman]

Nicely composed.

[John 2]

Not much wrong with that for me Brian. Good comp, good background and the colours look right. Perhaps a little more depth of field but .......... .

[JBW]

Not much wrong with that for me Brian. Good comp, good background and the colours look right. Perhaps a little more depth of field but .......... .

I do have other shots with different DoF. I'll take a look.

[JBW]

Nicely composed.

I was intentional about the composition.

[xpatUSA]

I continue to explore the Capture 1 Sony Pro and my camera setup. Sony Pro works in Adobe RGB so I switched my camera to match it. I don't know if it is wishful thinking or if there really is an improvement but i am reasonably certain it is no worse.

I notice that you also saved the posted image in Adobe RGB (1998). That leaves the danger that, if someone views your image in a non-color-managed viewer, your image will seem under-saturated, mainly in the greens, voila:



In the image at left, I had stripped out the Adobe RGB profile. As a consequence of that, my system displayed the left image in sRBG which is the default action for most systems. So, a Viewer that does not detect your Adobe RGB profile would do the same thing as above. Hopefully, you can see the difference. It is subtle but it is there.

I would recommend that, after working in Adobe RGB space for editing, you save the image as sRGB for posting - keeping your completed image in Adobe RGB if you intend further editing or if you wish to send it to someone who owns a 'wide-gamut' monitor.

[JBW]

I notice that you also saved the posted image in Adobe RGB (1998). That leaves the danger that, if someone views your image in a non-color-managed viewer, your image will seem under-saturated, mainly in the greens, voila:



In the image at left, I had stripped out the Adobe RGB profile. As a consequence of that, my system displayed the left image in sRBG which is the default action for most systems. So, a Viewer that does not detect your Adobe RGB profile would do the same thing as above. Hopefully, you can see the difference. It is subtle but it is there.

I would recommend that, after working in Adobe RGB space for editing, you save the image as sRGB for posting - keeping your completed image in Adobe RGB if you intend further editing or if you wish to send it to someone who owns a 'wide-gamut' monitor.

I can see the difference.
My problem is that I have 5 count them 5 distinct sRGB formats.
This one seems to be the closest.

[bnnrcn]

I like the image Brian, may be a bit more DOF would be better but it is nice as is

[JBW]

I like the image Brian, may be a bit more DOF would be better but it is nice as is

I did work with 2 or 3 different DoF's but this one was the best. Mind you the snail is still there....

[rpcrowe]

My chickens would clear your area of snails. OTOH they would also strip the tree of leaves as high as they can reach

[Wavelength]

A really fine image; fine colors and with needed DOF

[JBW]

My chickens would clear your area of snails. OTOH they would also strip the tree of leaves as high as they can reach

I imagine our turkeys and goose would clear the area too. But then what would I take pictures of? I know it sounds peculiar but we practice a strange live and let live theory of gardening. With a few exceptions for scorpions, cockroaches, poisonous spiders or snakes that find their way onto the house.

[JBW]

A really fine image; fine colors and with needed DOF

The snail was still there today so I took more shots from further back to see if it improves the DoF.

[xpatUSA]

I can see the difference.
My problem is that I have 5 count them 5 distinct sRGB formats.
This one seems to be the closest.

Hello Brian, picture looks good on my monitor.

I looked at the embedded profile in the above image:



It looks like the profile is one created for your viewing on your monitor by a calibration device.

Nothing wrong with that really, it looks OK on my monitor and at least it's not Adobe.

I've just down-loaded the GIMP, by the way

[JBW]

Hello Brian, picture looks good on my monitor.

I looked at the embedded profile in the above image:



It looks like the profile is one created for your viewing on your monitor by a calibration device.

Nothing wrong with that really, it looks OK on my monitor and at least it's not Adobe.

I've just down-loaded the GIMP, by the way

I am seriously happy that you like all this techno stuff I'm so lousy with. You will find Gimp is worthwhile though at least as complex as RT. If you find yourself confused give me a shout I may have a solution.