Backyard Birds & Browsers

Hi all,

Our first purpose in any post on any forum is always simply to share our beloved birds, and this post is no different in that regard. But I know many photographers here have a lot of experience preparing bird photos for web presentation and I wonder if some of you could share any insights you might have about the differences in the way various web browsers render (y)our photos. The question may apply to various photo hosting sites as well, but I have all our Smugmug galleries set to apply no processing to our images and yet I see significant differences (especially as regards sharpening) between MSIE, Chrome, and Firefox. And for some unknown reason IE is also now displaying our "Original" (largest size) images larger than my uploaded files... which of course degrades their quality. This is very unsettling, and I'd like to prevent or control this if possible.

Anyway, here's a new batch from the backyard since last time...

Cardinal portrait:

Kenn,

Tough to pick a favorite as all of these are excellent. The black chickadee may have the slight edge.

Thanks for sharing!

Craig

Thanks Craig,

For anyone else who is experiencing the enlarged and degraded image display I asked about above... (It's happening in Firefox, NOT MSIE ... my mistake)
Here's the fix from Mozilla:
https://support.mozill​a.org …and-blurry-after-updating

Still no info on sharpening and/or other differences between browser displays.


Kenn

Excellent series with great IQ

Great shots, they look fine in my Firefox at work.

I can't help with your question/problem, Kenn. All I know is that your images look good in Firefox on a NEC monitor (and a Mac Pro). Another wonderful set by you and Temple. Great work as always.

super shots. the detail in that cardinal shot is amazing.

Great set, as always Kenn, they are displaying without problems using Firefox v20.0.1

Your shots are always among the sharpest I see on the forum(to my eyes). Using IE.

kenn3d wrote in post #16170164
Thanks Craig,

For anyone else who is experiencing the enlarged and degraded image display I asked about above... (It's happening in Firefox, NOT MSIE ... my mistake)
Here's the fix from Mozilla:
https://support.mozill​a.org …and-blurry-after-updating

Still no info on sharpening and/or other differences between browser displays.


Kenn

Hey Kenn, I don't have the info right off the top and am at work so I'm just shooting this from the hip:

Go do a search here for "color management" and/or posts from Elie on the matter. The short answer is that some browsers are color managed and some aren't.

Thanks everyone,

I haven't really seen any significant color issues on our own images, although I do recall this being a problem for some here. I think some of my other worries may have been temporary host glitches during Smugmug's big upgrade this week. Now that the Firefox scaling problem is solved, the main thing I'm still noticing is that Chrome seems to add unwanted sharpening.

I guess with all the various platforms and diverse monitor setups and such there's only so much we can do to control how others see our efforts anyway.

Thanks very much for all your feedback.

Kenn

I think your efforts of outstanding.

Enjoyed? Loved it! Beautiful and stunning Kenn. The chick and the EB fledgling are my picks, but all of them are really really nice!

Hello Ken,
Your yard looks a lot like mine, same guys but the Flickers are rare though I hear them often. On your processing question, I have Flickr and Zen that I use. I used to use Flickr all the time but found that if I uploaded a shot at 1024 and chose original, Flickr still did something, I don't know what that changed the look so that I could see it. I went to Zen where I found a much better though at times changed slightly image. I don''t know if there is any hosting site that does not do something to our shots. Have you tried uploading from you directly here without any host sight even though I think the limit is two only even if you post a reply to your own thread? It would be interesting to see a shot directly from you to here and post the same shot from Smugmug in the same post to see and illustrate and show you the differences if there are any.
Very nice set as always with your little wonder camera, love the Chickadee and Cardinal, most of my Cardinals are either still very young or in the horrible molt they go through, I leave them alone when they are molting, they seem to be especially sensitive to have their picture taken.

Pondrader wrote in post #16176775
I think your efforts of outstanding.

jodelak wrote in post #16176859
Enjoyed? Loved it! Beautiful and stunning Kenn. The chick and the EB fledgling are my picks, but all of them are really really nice!

BGgraphy wrote in post #16177613
Hello Ken,
Your yard looks a lot like mine, same guys but the Flickers are rare though I hear them often. On your processing question, I have Flickr and Zen that I use. I used to use Flickr all the time but found that if I uploaded a shot at 1024 and chose original, Flickr still did something, I don't know what that changed the look so that I could see it. I went to Zen where I found a much better though at times changed slightly image. I don''t know if there is any hosting site that does not do something to our shots. Have you tried uploading from you directly here without any host sight even though I think the limit is two only even if you post a reply to your own thread? It would be interesting to see a shot directly from you to here and post the same shot from Smugmug in the same post to see and illustrate and show you the differences if there are any.
Very nice set as always with your little wonder camera, love the Chickadee and Cardinal, most of my Cardinals are either still very young or in the horrible molt they go through, I leave them alone when they are molting, they seem to be especially sensitive to have their picture taken.

Thanks also Pondrader, jodelak, and Bret.

Interesting idea on that upload test Bret... I believe there are indeed differences in the scaling algorithms used by various hosting services, and I've often wondered if users might be getting what they pay for with some of the free ones. I'm also quite sure that various forums handle image rendering differently depending on whether uploads are direct to their servers as opposed to being linked from other web sources. Unfortunately, the test I just tried won't work due to the 150kb limit on uploads here... We don't have any files on Smugmug which are that small.

And btw, that fledgling Flicker was our first ever here. Temple shot that one and the adult Red-belly with the SX40. The rest of this set were from the SX50. I think one of the main differences between your yard and ours is your gear... I've been thinking a lot about trying to get us a used 7d, but I'm not sure we'll be able to afford the proper glass for one.


Thanks again to all for your comments,

Kenn