bruslee1

<p>I use Safari. But I rechecked the file and it was shot in RGB not sRGB so maybe that is it. But it still puzzles me that on my monitor the smaller image looks very flat compared to the larger one.</p>

<p>Jin and Joshua, thanks for your help..</p>

<p>Mike, thanks for commenting, but it doesn't address the issue with the image being flat when viewed small but when you click on it and view it larger......the saturation looks fine. By the way, it was shot in sRGB.</p>

<p>Can anyone explain to me why some images posted on P.net lack color saturation and contrast and looks very flat. The small image of my latest posting titled "Gorge Vista" demonstrates this. When you click on it to make the image larger the saturation and contrast improves considerably.</p>

<p>I agree John, would somebody just answer the question. Is it a higher quality print (visually speaking) or not?</p>

<p>Although the archival qualities are important, I'm more interested in knowing if a Giclee print is considered a higher quality as in APPEARANCE. Is it a better print because of the print process and the type of inks used? I've read that the ink spray by these printers creates a better resolution print. </p>

<p>With the advancement of printer qualities, are Giclees still considered the standard for Fine Art prints?</p>

I'm starting to get a clue what my problem is..... Josh, I use Aperture and Photoshop but I

haven't been exporting the files to my desktop from Photoshop. I do initial organizing and

editing with Aperture and do the final tweaking in Photoshop, but then I export the files from

Aperture to the desktop as sRGB versions. Josh, I tried "Save for Web" as you suggested and it

looks good before I export to my desktop. When I preview it on my desktop it has lost the

saturation and contrast. That much I have figured out.

I thought I might clarify a couple more things on this. I don't have the same photograph

on my website to compare with one on photo.net, but trust me I can preview the photo

and upload to my site and it looks the same. This is not true when I upload to photo.net. If

I get an image that previews well on my screen, it is always flat and undersaturated when I

upload it. So, what I do is guess how much to increase the saturation and contrast then I

upload and preview. It is frequently wrong and I have to delete it and start over and repost.

Right now I have an image on here that is titled Emerald Forest that is oversaturated. When

I first posted, it came out too flat even though I bumped up the saturation. So, I deleted it

and reposted with even more saturation and as a result it is oversaturated now. Hit or miss

is my problem.......no way to preview what the image will look like until I have uploaded to

photo.net. My images look good in camera with good histograms and look good on my

computer screen, but not when uploaded to photo.net.......therefore I go through the

frustrating hit or miss process and rarely get the image to where I want it, so I just leave

them on as they are.Thanks again for any help.

Emre, I am using a Macbook pro with Safari and my monitor has been calibrated recently.

Don, the only reason my images look OK on this site is because I have had to extremely

oversaturate and increase the contrast levels before posting. I have taken many images off

because it has been a hit or miss process without being able to preview them before I

upload since they turn out so differently. As far as me being the only person having this

problem on photo.net, that is incorrect. You will notice that Eric on this thread has the

same problem along with many other people. I know this is true because I have read it in

other forum postings. I'm just frustrated to not have a clear answer on what causes it and

how to fix it. Thanks, Bruce

I tried downsizing the image size and still have the same problem with low saturation and contrast levels. At this point, I have to believe it is a problem with photo.net

Don E., thanks for your help, I will try downsizing my images to see if this helps the problem.

Don E, When you say they are out of spec., I'm not following you. Are you saying that even

though they are converted to srgb when I upload them, they aren't converting correctly? I

looked at your portfolio and your images are fine. Are you saying that you shoot in srgb and

upload directly without having to increase the saturation or contrast? I do shoot in RGB, but

as I stated I convert them to srgb in the Aperture export process.

Don, I could believe that to be the problem except for the fact that when viewed on my

desktop it has the same light grey background and it looks fine.

Dennis, the image size that I export is medium email which is about a 350kb file size and

in landscape mode fills most of the monitor screen. Emre, I currently don't have any

duplicate images on my website and photo.net. Don, I do have a black background on my

website. Also, my monitor was calibrated about a month ago, but this has been an

ongoing issue for me. The point I am trying to make is that when the image is worked on

in Photoshop or Aperture, it looks fine and when it is exported as an srgb file to the

desktop, it looks fine. It is only when it is uploaded to photo.net that it is washed out.

There is no way for me to preview the image to see how it is going to look before

uploading to photo.net........it is hit or miss depending on how much I bump up the

saturation and contrast. It usually requires a big increase to a point of making the image

look like a comic book (extreme saturation and contrast). What am I missing? Why should I

have to overly adjust the image at all if it is in srgb on my desktop and it looks fine?

Thanks for your help.

Marshall, the problem for me has been unique to photo.net. I haven't had the washed look

on my website or any other sites I have posted to. The image has been converted to srgb

when I export it from Aperture and it looks fine on my desktop. I upload to photo.net and it

doesn't look anything like it's supposed to.

Does anyone know why uploading images in srgb to photo.net still come out washed out with low

saturation and contrast levels? Is this problem unique to photo.net? I don't experience this when uploading

images to my website or other sites. If this is a common problem here, I wonder if there is a way for it to

be fixed short of making my images look cartoonish before uploading.

Thanks people for all the good information......I think I'm still confused on which lens I

should buy. I'm reading from a lot of people that the Sigma and Tokina are just as good as

the Nikon for half the price. It also sounds like people think the ultra wide angles are good

for landscapes as opposed to the 17-55. Image quality would be the most important issue

for me.

Edward, Matthew, and Leslie.....thanks for the great feedback, very helpful information.

Edward, I read on Ken Rockwell's website that the 17-35 was a good wide angle for FX

cameras, but not for DX.

I have the D200 and I am trying to decide what wide angle lens to buy that would be good for weddings

and landscapes. The widest lens I currently have is the 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 G. I am considering the 17-55

f/2.8 and the 12-24 f/4 Nikkors. I would also consider the Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 12-24. Anyone have

any input on this?

Richard, I agree with what Francis said. I have the D200, MacbookPro, Aperture, and CS3. I use Aperture for everything except for more in depth adjustments. Aperture is such a good program for organizing and basic edits.....makes it much faster than just using CS3.

Thanks Frank.....helpful information.

I have been leaning toward the Tokina 12-24 after reading about it. Does anyone think the

Nikkor is worth double the price?

Thangavelu and Chris, thanks for the suggestions. I might add that I'm using the D200 and

D100 camera bodies.

What lens should I buy to replace my 18-70mm 3.5-4.5? It now has a chip in it making it unusable at wide

angle. I will use it for Weddings and Landscapes. Other lenses I own are 50mm 1.4, 24-120 3.5-5.6 VR,

70-200 2.8 VR. I don't have a huge budget, but would consider a pro lens if it is well worth it.