Striking a pose

[jkshyt]

Working on eye sharpening & saturation.
Feel free to post a little CC.
Thanks

https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...l/DSC06582.jpg

[xpatUSA]

Working on eye sharpening & saturation.
Feel free to post a little CC.
Thanks

https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...l/DSC06582.jpg

The WebP's are getting a bit tiresome.

The JPEG linked to is a bit small to assess. Looks like Photobucket re-sized it:

<div class="section content" id="content" style="height: calc(-200px + 100vh); width: calc(-340px + 100vw);">
                <img id="image" src="https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/gg404/jacsul/DSC06582.jpg">
            </div>

The increase in saturation may have changed the color of the dog's fur.

Chroma reduced and only eyes selected and sharpened:



"... Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln ... "

[DanK]

Effective use of depth of field. the dog stands out very nicely from the surroundings.

A few suggestions:

See whether photobucket allows you to use the actual JPEG format rather than webp. The latter is supported by browsers (which is why we can see your image) but not by some photo software (which is why Ted and I couldn't open the image). I was able to get to it only by copying it, pasting it into Irfanview, and saving to JPEG from there.

I'd be very wary of boosting saturation globally. There are some instances in which I find it reasonable, but these are mostly cases where the realism of colors doesn't matter. When it does matter, boosting saturation globally often leads to unnatural colors. Also, if you increase contrast, that will also increase saturation, which is one more reason to be careful about increasing it separately. A more cautious approach is to give a modest boost to vibrance, which is a more subtle effect, or boost saturation only in specific areas or specific colors, if there is a need for that.

I don't know what the dog actually looks like, but s/he is very dark in the photo. I'd consider dodging some.

[xpatUSA]

A few suggestions:

See whether photobucket allows you to use the actual JPEG format rather than webp. The latter is supported by browsers (which is why we can see your image) but not by some photo software (which is why Ted and I couldn't open the image). I was able to get to it only by copying it, pasting it into Irfanview, and saving to JPEG from there ...

... and, in my case (Win 7), I get the error message with either the left double-click or the right single-click. So, to open it, I have to open the GIMP first and then use the GIMP's 'Open' menu.

I'd be very wary of boosting saturation globally. There are some instances in which I find it reasonable, but these are mostly cases where the realism of colors doesn't matter. When it does matter, boosting saturation globally often leads to unnatural colors. ...

Agreed. For example, in the HSV color model where increasing saturation widens the gap between the highest and lowest value, sooner or later one of those will bottom or clip and increasing thereafter changes the hue.

I'm fairly confident that the main part of the dog's fur is much less reddish as opposed to the stripey bits, as shown in my previous post.

[jkshyt]

[QUOTE=xpatUSA;768068]Getting a bit tiresome ...



The JPEG linked to is a bit small to assess. Looks like Photobucket re-sized it:

I'll try another media to post from.
I didn't realize photobucket was problematic.
The photo you produced is a closer rendering with less saturation.

[xpatUSA]

Getting a bit tiresome ...

<snipped screenshot>

The JPEG linked to is a bit small to assess. Looks like Photobucket re-sized it:

I'll try another media to post from ...

... but please note that quite a few, if not all, of these free image-hosting sites mess around with one's uploaded images.

That is why I put all mine up on my own website. (Not saying that you should, though).

I didn't realize photobucket was problematic.

Not problematic as such, Jack(?). The image in the link was good enough for a quick look - but not good for downloading and analytical pixel-peeping.

The photo you produced is a closer rendering with less saturation.

Thanks, I suspected so. Did you notice the eyes?

[jkshyt]

Effective use of depth of field. the dog stands out very nicely from the surroundings.

A few suggestions:

See whether photobucket allows you to use the actual JPEG format rather than webp. The latter is supported by browsers (which is why we can see your image) but not by some photo software (which is why Ted and I couldn't open the image). I was able to get to it only by copying it, pasting it into Irfanview, and saving to JPEG from there.

I'd be very wary of boosting saturation globally. There are some instances in which I find it reasonable, but these are mostly cases where the realism of colors doesn't matter. When it does matter, boosting saturation globally often leads to unnatural colors. Also, if you increase contrast, that will also increase saturation, which is one more reason to be careful about increasing it separately. A more cautious approach is to give a modest boost to vibrance, which is a more subtle effect, or boost saturation only in specific areas or specific colors, if there is a need for that.

I don't know what the dog actually looks like, but s/he is very dark in the photo. I'd consider dodging some.

She is Chestnut brindle, her colors actually become lively during certain times of the year.
I see what you mean about the saturation, Teds rendering looks much more natural. A much better fit.
I'm not too familiar with photobucket's format, I may look for another format to work from.
Thanks for the input!

Ok, let's try this.
DSC06582 by jk Sullivan, on Flickr