Log in

No account? Create an account
14 January 2005 @ 07:17 am
More photos transferred to my new album(s)  

I've now posted my photos of Vasoline Alley, Ripsnorter, and some people in the crowd who caught my interest at the Loring Cafe on September 2, 2000 to my albums at ImageEvent.com. They were previously up at ClubPhoto.

These "transfers" took a little longer than the others because the jpegs I had were rather smaller than I'd like to be posting these days. However, I was lucky and had saved Photoshop versions of the processed files just before I shrank 'em and saved them to jpeg, so all I had to do was go back to the Photoshop files and save them to jpegs in their actual size. While I was at it, I lightened them up a bit (having discovered that WinTel machines present darker screen images than Macs) and decreased the contrast on some. I think they look pretty nice now.

Loring Cafe—Vasoline Alley & Ripsnorter

Image hosting by ImageEvent

Current Mood: cheerfulcheerful
Current Music: Mike Bloomfield: Live at the Old Waldorf
songs in the key of mechorus on January 14th, 2005 05:15 pm (UTC)
Yeah, Win[x] boxes by default have a different base gamma for some bizarre reason I've never understood. (I think it's like, 1.8 vs 2.2 or something, but don't quote me on that.) But then given the vagaries of monitors and the huge array of them, as well as graphics cards, as well as personal preference, nothing presented online will ever look quite the same to any four or so people, alas.

I should go check them out, I like your pictures. But I probably won't know anyone in them.
gomeza on January 14th, 2005 05:30 pm (UTC)
Yeah, that whole "different gamma on PC's than on Macs" thing rather bugs me. There oughta be an industry standard or sumpin!
gomeza on January 14th, 2005 05:44 pm (UTC)
commenting on my own post
A little more detail: Macs do gamma correction in the graphics card, PC's do not.

A Mac expects images to be gamma corrected to 1.8, the SGI wants them at 1.4 and PCs and Suns want them at 2.5. Since Mac's and PC's are most common, you can average between the two at 2.2 if you are setting up for the web.
dd-bdd_b on January 14th, 2005 10:52 pm (UTC)
The canonical approach to the Mac/Windows graphics display divide is to covert images destined for web display to sRGB color profile (Image / Mode / Convert to profile in Photoshop) from whatever working space you're using. Most browsers will guess sRGB if the image isn't tagged. Most browsers will also use the profile specified if you leave the image tagged (which takes some extra space, an amount that's significant for a web gallery of small images).
Fred A Levy Haskell: Fredcritter with camerafredcritter on January 17th, 2005 05:47 am (UTC)

I'm using Photoshops "Save for web" option, and it is unclear to me whether the profie is getting saved with the image. Would it be possible for you to check for me? Thanks!

dd-bdd_b on January 17th, 2005 05:54 am (UTC)
Photo #6 from the 2-Sep Vasoline Alley shoot does not have a profile in it on the web site (that's what I'd expect form Save for Web).

Not having a profile works mostly fine *if* the image is first converted to sRGB, which is both the color space most closely approximating a random CRT monitor, and the color space browsers assume for untagged images.
Mizz Laura Jeanmizzlaurajean on January 14th, 2005 11:20 pm (UTC)
You are a fabulous photographer!
Fred A Levy Haskell: Fredcritter with camerafredcritter on January 17th, 2005 05:50 am (UTC)


It helped that the Loring was such a cool venue in which to work. And that Vasoline Alley was so devoted to … visually-oriented performance as well as musical performance. It was easy to get amazing photos with Rob running around being … visual.