DSLRUsers.com

When up loading from Flickr I am able to use URL or HTML what do each stand for and which is the preferred for this site .
URL
[img]<a%20href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/60658848@N00/17212541/"%20title="Photo%20Sharing"><img%20src="http://photos9.flickr.com/17212541_b5a297860a.jpg"%20width="500"%20height="333"%20alt="Img1592"%20/></a>[/img] HTML
I can see a difference in colour !!! URL has more yellow in the shirts .WHY IS IT SO. LOZ

Loz,

I can't see a difference. The difference between HTML and URL is the code allowed on the forums, which is both. There is no difference.

PiroStitch The HTML has a blue boarder on my screen and is not as intense in colour? as the URL

And there are more seagulls in the HTML

The url image certainly has more saturation

URL = Uniform Resource Locator
HTML = Hypertext Markup Language

What i think the reason for the difference in colours is (and dont quote me on this) that HTML is a 'language' and it has its limits, in this case it has a limit on the abillity to make up colours where as a URL is just a location / address on the internet of a file.

Jamie

Loz

What Wayne says is spot on and Jamie is off the mark (sorry jamie)

These are both the same image. The HTML code created by the forum software for the first image once it's rendered for display says to your browser software to display the image at the URL http://photos9.flickr.com/17212541_b5a297860a.jpg. For the second image it tells your browser to do the exact same thing so in both cases the EXACT same image is being displayed. The ONLY difference between URL and HTML in this context is that the HTML version also includes some extra HTML code for your browser (the href bit) that tells your browser to also make the image a hyperlink so that clicking on it takes you to the page for that image on flickr. Because the second image is also a hyperlink your cursor will change to a hand when you move over it and it has a coloured border (which can change depending on whether you've visited the link previously). It CANNOT have different numbers of seagulls or colour - in both cases the same photo is being displayed.

There is DEFINATELY a difference in colour saturation. So why is it so????????

Oneputt wrote:There is DEFINATELY a difference in colour saturation. So why is it so????????

As Peter said, there should be no difference between the two images, they point to exactly same image.

The difference could be explained, maybe, calibration on your monitor, top half lower half discrepency, the angle your monitor is at, so the light gets reflected differently for each photo, light in your office, etc, etc.

Maybe some kind of optical illusion because one has the blue border for the URL??

Try viewing the images side by side (download each to your desktop).

I certainly can't see a difference

Cheers,

Andre

I can't see any difference in colour

I don't trust my eyes though so I took a screenshot (just in case IE is doing something to them) and compared the two images in photoshop using a difference blend. There's no difference, they're identical pixel to pixel. I also compared the files directly (just saved with a different name) and also no difference.

If you're seeing a difference.. perhaps your browser is rendering them differently for some reason (and i'm at a loss as to why that should be).

Oneputt wrote:There is DEFINATELY a difference in colour saturation. So why is it so????????

John

Can you hold down the shift key and hit refresh in your browser while holding it down. That forces a recache of the images. Do they still look different?

Here's a screen shot for me and they look identical (they come from the same source as I've explained above)

start of screen shot



end of screen shot

LOZ wrote:I can see a difference in colour !!!:shock: URL has more yellow in the shirts .WHY IS IT SO. LOZ

Sorry, can't see any difference on my Hitachi CRT monitor...

Andy

I just did a poll and 7out of 7 could see a difference all of their comments were that second pix looked washed out and the boy standing shirt had more yellow LOZ

I'm going to say this for anyone who has a doubt:

Url codes for displaying images DO NOT change the colours of your images.

What you're seeing is psychological.

Peter I just did as you suggested, only this time I am on an LCD monitor at home wheras this morning I was on a CRT minitor in the office....and yes I can still see a clear difference.

Leigh I guarantee it is not in my mind!!!

John

I have to emphatically concur with Leigh, but also I don't doubt your sanity.

Please take a screen shot (Shift+Print Screen on a PC) and post it for us to see. Does my screen shot look like two different pics or the same two pics to you?

Loz - same for you

LOZ wrote:I just did a poll and 7out of 7 could see a difference all of their comments were that second pix looked washed out and the boy standing shirt had more yellow LOZ

did they see the extra seagulls? if so how many differ between the two images?

Perhaps the blue border on the second image creates that optical illusion of saturation difference, mild that it is Perhaps getting rid of border may give our eyes an opportunity to see what the brain and logic keeps telling us
cheers
marco

marcotrov wrote:Perhaps the blue border on the second image creates that optical illusion of saturation difference, mild that it is

That's what I reckon, too. I saved both images to disk, and their MD5 sums come out identical (0xf9eb6bffc7189c56f256e142cc4d2372, if anyone wants to compare).

Cheers
Steffen.

Just as an illustration of the tricks our brains can play on us, here's my favourite optical illusion, and what a ripper it is:

http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html

Cheers
Steffen.

Well I am at a friends place and we compared the two images and we both agree that their is a difference on his laptop as well .LOZ

Errrrr well I took a screen print and I have to say..............................................................................






















Now that I cannot see a diference

Is the answer to do with viewing angles? The two images are on two different levels of the screen, does the second look the same as the first when scrolled to be in the same position as the first was? Can you put them side to side?

In other news, and slightly OT, I have never seen HTML work in others' posts, but it works fine in the 'topic review' when I'm replying (i.e. I can only see 1 image in LOZ's first post when I'm viewing the thread, but I see both of them in the 'topic review' box when I'm replying). Any ideas? Occurs in Opera, Firefox and IE.

MCWB wrote:In other news, and slightly OT, I have never seen HTML work in others' posts, but it works fine in the 'topic review' when I'm replying (i.e. I can only see 1 image in LOZ's first post when I'm viewing the thread, but I see both of them in the 'topic review' box when I'm replying). Any ideas? Occurs in Opera, Firefox and IE.

Look in your profile, does it say "Always allow HTML"? It should be set to yes to show HTML properly.

HTH,

Andre

My 0.02, for what it's worth (not much) is that it is something to do with the viewing angle / screen.... I noticed the difference as well, but then when I continued to scroll down to read the next few posts, I noticed that the second pic, when it reached the top of the screen, was more saturated.... much like the first pic (which had been at the top of the screen when they were both showing) looked originally.

When I move around and change the viewing angle, the saturation also changes.

Awesome Andre, thanks!

Here's the two blighters side-by-side, twice. Anyone see any differences now?

IMG, HTML
HTML, IMG

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/60658848@N00/17212541/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://photos9.flickr.com/17212541_b5a297860a.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Img1592" /></a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/60658848@N00/17212541/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://photos9.flickr.com/17212541_b5a297860a.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Img1592" /></a>

All the same!