On 21-3-2018 11:52, Ive wrote:
> Am 3/20/2018 um 8:43 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> Once in a while, I like to revisit an older scene and remodel it to 
>> current standards and my changing insights and skills. I did this 
>> lately with my entry to the TC-RTC back in 2008: "N". I still want to 
>> change some elements but the comparison over ten years of using 
>> POV-Ray are notable. Left, is the entry of 2008; right, the new version.
>>
> 
> Sorry, but overall I do prefer the original.
> The new version seems quite over-saturated, especially the vegetation, 
> the bricks and the wheel.

I agree for the vegetation, maybe the wheel, not really for the bricks. 
However, my question would be: where does over-saturation come from?

It is strange. The original is - imo - strongly under-saturated.

> While the new camera view is nice it has the unfortunate side effect 
> that two birds of the flock are very close to the top border and this 
> hurts the composition.

Yes. You are perfectly right. Another reason to revisit the birds.

> 
> And a general note to everybody who's posting images to theses 
> newsgroups: please make sure your JPEG image contains a ICC profile. 
> Since about 2 months Firefox and Thunderbird have full color management 
> enabled by default. Chrome and Opera do the same since quite a while, 
> only IE and Edge don't - but who uses them anyway?
> Every contemporary mid-range monitor has a wider color gamut than sRGB, 
> the one I use even wider than Adobe RGB - and I can assure you, the 
> difference is NOT subtle.
> When I want to make sure to view an image as intended I have to do a few 
> additional steps and as I'm lazy I usually don't care. As color 
> management only kicks in for images with ICC profiles I have to save the 
> image to my local disk and check *if* it contains a profile and if not 
> use my own image viewer that correctly assumes for images without 
> profile to be in sRGB and transforms them correctly to my viewing device 
> profile.
> 

Hmmm... I don't know how to achieve that...

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message