MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => General - Top Sites => Topic started by: digiology on June 19, 2007, 13:13
-
Who do you think does the best job converting our images for web view? I made these screen grabs to compare the differences.
http://clarkcreative.ca/chicken.jpg
http://clarkcreative.ca/orangestripes.jpg
I think I like SS the best. Colour is close to the original and image is sharper. IS and LO are more saturated while 123 and StockXpert look flat. I know it will look different on everyone's monitor. I was just curious to see what you guys think?
-
I always prefer higher color saturation levels so I like LO and IS.
This posting reminds me of the Kodacrome vs. Velvia debates back in the day (I was/am a Velvia man myself).
-
Interesting feedback. It might be neat to see the differences across different types of images. These images had a lot of red.
-
well - i'll be darned - i had no clue there were such differences in the previews... learn something new every day!
hopefully it isn't happening to the actual images... right?
Bryan, here's a set of blue images for ya to compare:
http://homepage.mac.com/maunger/images/stockSiteColorDiffs.jpg
-
I've noticed differences, but thought it was varying power levels from my generator. But now you mention it, I think I like Featurepics colors and definition best.
-
thought it was varying power levels from my generator.
LOL.... It took me a minute to remember that you live on a boat! (Don't you?)
-
hopefully it isn't happening to the actual images... right?
Bryan, here's a set of blue images for ya to compare:
[url]http://homepage.mac.com/maunger/images/stockSiteColorDiffs.jpg[/url]
Bryan is this happening to the actual images? I figured it was just the previews.
Thanks Maunger for the blue comparison. :)
-
You should try looking at your pics sometime on a dodgy CRT monitor, some of them look positively awful. I've tried to show friends at work (back when I was working another job that is) on an office computer - definitely not a way to impress!