I’m not a good photographer, hardly even passable, so it’s a pity I enjoy it as much as I do

I’m not a good photographer, hardly even passable, so it’s a pity I enjoy it as much as I do.

In her new glasses
In her new glasses, 2006

Published by

Juli Kearns

Juli Kearns is the author of Thunderbird and the Ball of Twine and Unending Wonders of a Subatomic World (or) In Search of the Great Penguin. She is also an artist/photographer, and the person behind the web alter of "Idyllopus Press".

6 thoughts on “I’m not a good photographer, hardly even passable, so it’s a pity I enjoy it as much as I do”

  1. Nice photos, as usual. I have just today discovered, with some experimentation, that some browsers display photos better than others. (Color photos, at least.) I put a note about browsers and color profiles up on my blog–but probably the whole world but me knew this anyway.
    In any case, the new glasses picture looks nice in any browser, but slightly better in Safari, on a Mac, than in Firefox.
    All the news that’s fit to print.

  2. I’m a PC user and the Color-Sync is a Mac option. I work in Adobe RGB and my monitor is calibrated 2.2 gamma and seems to be showing good range…have an LCD monitor that isn’t one of the big guns though…but it supposedly is very good with graphics for its price. In short, though I work in Adobe RGB and supposedly have my monitor calibrated, because I’m not high-powered hardware wise I’m not certain of the reliability of what I see, much less what anyone else is seeing, and just hope for a decent approximation online.

    Are you calibrated 1.8?

    Could be the glasses pic looks punchier more saturated than what I have.

    As for Flickr (which you mention elsewhere) I had switched over to putting my pics up on Flickr and using that for resource rather than my website because, in the case of multiple links, it was easy to change them out. Plus it was a good resource for relatives. Flickr does however, I realized after a time, have a problem with over-sharpening photos when converting for smaller sizes and now I’m wondering if I was stupid to link everything from Flickr. Agh. But I believe it does just fine with the original resolutions. At any rate, I like how you have been putting up the really large resolutions of your images, something I had not done and should have with the old photos I’d scanned for private for family. Dumb of me and I don’t think I’ve the energy or inclination to go back through about 1000 old family photos and rescan them. Almost all were poor snapshot quality that I never thought might be printed out which is why I went with low resolution and smaller image size. Maybe that’s ok.

  3. I tend to do images where I’ve desaturated a good bit of the color and put in a sepia cast. Even with those that look “in color” I can’t right now think of a single one where I haven’t done this. Though I don’t when doing the digital paintings. With the digital paintings I go heavy on the color usually.

  4. Thanks. I’ve read the site you recommended, and some other stuff, about color profiles, gamma, and calibration now.

    Naturally, it becomes more complicated. What is becoming clearer is that no matter what you do, the same photo on any site on the web is going to display differently on a mac and a pc, even assuming (perhaps especially assuming) those machines are properly calibrated.

    I am still puzzled by why, if I get my photo the way I like it on a mac, and I send it to a web site, it will appear washed out when viewed on my own machine, even if that web site uses the color profile attached to my file, and not all web sites do.

    Safari being a native mac (and mac-only) web browser, seems to compensate for this. I guess they do this to make sure you do not realize how bad your photos look to the rest of the world. Firefox, as best I can tell, shows you the photos as other see them. Hence, if I want to look at my own photos on Flickr, and have them appear as they looked before being sent to the web, I should use Safari.

    Or, I can set my display gamma to 2.2 for viewing on the web, which I have discovered has the same effect. I am not sure whether I should set it that way for working in Photoshop. The calibration routine in OSX gives you many options, and says you should use gamma 2.2 if you are doing work to be viewed on a pc. So maybe that’s what I should be doing.

    Eve has the same computer as I do, but with windows installed. When she gets home for Christmas in a couple of days I’ll see how my photos look on a pc running windows (which is what the new macs are, when they boot up under windows.)

  5. Jim, I’ve read a lot a lot on it and it gets pretty confusing because there are so many different opinions on the matter, but in some of my readings yesterday I did see some people recommending Mac users use 2.2. (Some of those forum threads get pretty wild, moderators having to step in.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *