Ok, but I can't edit photos to suit people's individual eye sight.
Ok, but I can't edit photos to suit people's individual eye sight.
@Bryan has written: @DanHasLeftForum has written: @Bryan has written:That shot just hurts my eyes.
An image has good separation blur where the background is (mostly) indistinguishable and minimal separation blur where the background is distinguishable with minimal blur. There is generally no happy medium - certainly not in this case.
I can't be sure on sharpening but the bird's head feathers look like they have had hot wax combed through them - a common result of over sharpening.Edited for clarity.
Thank you for your thoughts Bryan π
You are the first one ever who has said that image hurts their eyes.
I suspect it might be related to the way your screen is rendering the image. Your screen is most likely calibrated and profiled differently to mine.
It's not the calibration of my monitor. It's the level of background blur. Neither diffuse from enough separation nor close enough to focused to remain comfortable.
Ok, but I can't edit photos to suit people's individual eye sight.
No. No amount of editing can fix that.
@DanHasLeftForum has written: @Bryan has written: @DanHasLeftForum has written: @Bryan has written:That shot just hurts my eyes.
There is good separation blur where the background is (mostly) indistinguishable and minimal separation blur where the background is distinguishable with minimal blur. There is generally no happy medium - certainly not in this case.
I can't be sure on sharpening but the bird's head feathers look like they have had hot wax combed through them - a common result of over sharpening.Thank you for your thoughts Bryan π
You are the first one ever who has said that image hurts their eyes.
I suspect it might be related to the way your screen is rendering the image. Your screen is most likely calibrated and profiled differently to mine.
It's not the calibration of my monitor. It's the level of background blur. Neither diffuse from enough separation nor close enough to focused to remain comfortable.
Ok, but I can't edit photos to suit people's individual eye sight.
No. No amount of editing can fix that.
Since no-one else who has viewed the image anywhere has told me it hurts their eyes, I hope you find someone who can cure your issue with your eyes.
@Bryan has written: @DanHasLeftForum has written: @Bryan has written: @DanHasLeftForum has written: @Bryan has written:That shot just hurts my eyes.
An image has good separation blur where the background is (mostly) indistinguishable and minimal separation blur where the background is distinguishable with minimal blur. There is generally no happy medium - certainly not in this case.
I can't be sure on sharpening but the bird's head feathers look like they have had hot wax combed through them - a common result of over sharpening.Edited for clarity.
Thank you for your thoughts Bryan π
You are the first one ever who has said that image hurts their eyes.
I suspect it might be related to the way your screen is rendering the image. Your screen is most likely calibrated and profiled differently to mine.
It's not the calibration of my monitor. It's the level of background blur. Neither diffuse from enough separation nor close enough to focused to remain comfortable.
Ok, but I can't edit photos to suit people's individual eye sight.
No. No amount of editing can fix that.
Since no-one else who has viewed the image anywhere has told me it hurts their eyes, I hope you find someone who can cure your issue with your eyes.
Over time I have posted some pretty ordinary pics on this forum. It only takes one person to relate the flaws and it's taken on board. After all, that is the function of the Critique part of C&C - don't you think?
@MikeFewster has written: @DanHasLeftForum has written: @RoelHendrickx has written:
This entire thread is an exercise in frustration for me. I agree with the points Dan made about fish eyes and his suggestion for a small lift around Els to bring her out from the background. Roel's film suggestions resulted in bookmarking. Great. I was ready to post. Then I discovered the later discussion where Roel explains his fish eye technique and Dan plays further with the image.Flat view makes this all very tedious. Going backwards and forwards to put everything together before making a post is ultra tedious.I'm not into ultra wide angle or fisheye shots generally but this one seems to work for me because of its composition and/or cropping. I like the glow from the backlight surrounding the building. It helps take me through the scene from foreground to background.
Just some food for thought. Maybe highlight your wife a bit more to help her standout in the scene?
Thank you for sharing π
You are misquoting me because a lot of that I didn't say at all.
For the sake of clarity to those who don't read every post I have struck out where I have been incorrectly quoted.
FWIW I donβt see the incorrect quoting.
Mike just kunda summarized different parts of the conversation, centering on different aspects, and expressed how all that would be easier to follow in a threaded forum view under the image - hence his frustration.
No need nor trigger to be confrontational here.
@RoelHendrickx has written: @DanHasLeftForum has written:WATER COLORS
Ovens River running through Bright, North East Victoria, Australia.
I've looked at this image a few times now over the past days.
And I have read some of the comments.
For my own (small) comment, I want to just get back to your original image, whithout all the extra information and opinions.
I can recognize what is shown here (a river with rapids), but I was at first unsure of how the effect was achieved.
My initial impression (being the naive documentary photographer that I am) was that we were looking at a "straight" shot, of some kind of event, where patches of coloured light were projected onto the water (a bit like stage lighting, but onto a moving river instead of on ballet dancers). It could have been a theatrical event or an avant-garde performance or experimental art installation.
The title would have been appropriate.
But now I realize that this is your own artistic expression, where the photo almost acts as blank canvas for a play with colour and light (and darkness).
And then the title is even more appropriate, because we are more in the realm of painting here, than of photography.
Painting not with oils or acryl, but with ... water colours.It is not really my personal cup of tea (taking as criterium: would I hang this on a wall for me to look at it more often).
But I do appreciate every expression of creativity and the willingness to share it.
Much like with LouHolland actually (a former contributor whose PP experiments went often in the same kind of direction).I'm confused. I don't know who said what I struck out above but it wasn't me.
That was all me.
I responed to your initial image, even though there had already been other comments.
@DanHasLeftForum has written: @RoelHendrickx has written: @DanHasLeftForum has written:WATER COLORS
Ovens River running through Bright, North East Victoria, Australia.
I've looked at this image a few times now over the past days.
And I have read some of the comments.
For my own (small) comment, I want to just get back to your original image, whithout all the extra information and opinions.
I can recognize what is shown here (a river with rapids), but I was at first unsure of how the effect was achieved.
My initial impression (being the naive documentary photographer that I am) was that we were looking at a "straight" shot, of some kind of event, where patches of coloured light were projected onto the water (a bit like stage lighting, but onto a moving river instead of on ballet dancers). It could have been a theatrical event or an avant-garde performance or experimental art installation.
The title would have been appropriate.
But now I realize that this is your own artistic expression, where the photo almost acts as blank canvas for a play with colour and light (and darkness).
And then the title is even more appropriate, because we are more in the realm of painting here, than of photography.
Painting not with oils or acryl, but with ... water colours.It is not really my personal cup of tea (taking as criterium: would I hang this on a wall for me to look at it more often).
But I do appreciate every expression of creativity and the willingness to share it.
Much like with LouHolland actually (a former contributor whose PP experiments went often in the same kind of direction).I'm confused. I don't know who said what I struck out above but it wasn't me.
That was all me.
I responed to your initial image, even though there had already been other comments.
It is very easy to use quotes correctly and not misrepresent what other people have posted.
@DanHasLeftForum has written: @MikeFewster has written: @DanHasLeftForum has written: @RoelHendrickx has written:
This entire thread is an exercise in frustration for me. I agree with the points Dan made about fish eyes and his suggestion for a small lift around Els to bring her out from the background. Roel's film suggestions resulted in bookmarking. Great. I was ready to post. Then I discovered the later discussion where Roel explains his fish eye technique and Dan plays further with the image.Flat view makes this all very tedious. Going backwards and forwards to put everything together before making a post is ultra tedious.I'm not into ultra wide angle or fisheye shots generally but this one seems to work for me because of its composition and/or cropping. I like the glow from the backlight surrounding the building. It helps take me through the scene from foreground to background.
Just some food for thought. Maybe highlight your wife a bit more to help her standout in the scene?
Thank you for sharing π
You are misquoting me because a lot of that I didn't say at all.
For the sake of clarity to those who don't read every post I have struck out where I have been incorrectly quoted.
FWIW I donβt see the incorrect quoting.
Mike just kunda summarized different parts of the conversation, centering on different aspects, and expressed how all that would be easier to follow in a threaded forum view under the image - hence his frustration.
No need nor trigger to be confrontational here.
I pointed out the misquoting by striking out what I didn't say.
I posted earlier how to use quotes directly.
I also said that yes, anyone can make an honest mistake once but doing it again will be seen as deliberate and corrected.
If people don't want their posts corrected then simply don't misquote me. It's that simple.
@DanHasLeftForum has written: @Bryan has written: @DanHasLeftForum has written: @Bryan has written: @DanHasLeftForum has written: @Bryan has written:That shot just hurts my eyes.
An image has good separation blur where the background is (mostly) indistinguishable and minimal separation blur where the background is distinguishable with minimal blur. There is generally no happy medium - certainly not in this case.
I can't be sure on sharpening but the bird's head feathers look like they have had hot wax combed through them - a common result of over sharpening.Edited for clarity.
Thank you for your thoughts Bryan π
You are the first one ever who has said that image hurts their eyes.
I suspect it might be related to the way your screen is rendering the image. Your screen is most likely calibrated and profiled differently to mine.
It's not the calibration of my monitor. It's the level of background blur. Neither diffuse from enough separation nor close enough to focused to remain comfortable.
Ok, but I can't edit photos to suit people's individual eye sight.
No. No amount of editing can fix that.
Since no-one else who has viewed the image anywhere has told me it hurts their eyes, I hope you find someone who can cure your issue with your eyes.
Over time I have posted some pretty ordinary pics on this forum. It only takes one person to relate the flaws and it's taken on board. After all, that is the function of the Critique part of C&C - don't you think?
But the problem is not everyone sees as a flaw what in your opinion is a flaw.
Just because the photo hurts your eyes but no-one else's afaik does not mean there is a flaw in the photo.
As I posted earlier, I consider feedback from everywhere my images are viewable.
@Bryan has written: @DanHasLeftForum has written:SUPERB FAIRY WREN
Canon 90D f/6.3, 1/2000s, ISO 250, 552mm (883mm eq)
That shot just hurts my eyes.
There is good separation blur where the background is (mostly) indistinguishable and minimal separation blur where the background is distinguishable with minimal blur. There is generally no happy medium - certainly not in this case.
I can't be sure on sharpening but the bird's head feathers look like they have had hot wax combed through them - a common result of over sharpening.Thank you for your thoughts Bryan π
You are the first one ever who has said that image hurts their eyes.
I suspect it might be related to the way your screen is rendering the image. Your screen is most likely calibrated and profiled differently to mine.
The image has a couple of problems that can be corrected to make it less hurtful to some viewers. The accidental placement of intense green leaves behind the bird, and the deep blacks on the plumage. This result is a lot more soothing for my eyes:
@DanHasLeftForum has written: @Bryan has written: @DanHasLeftForum has written:SUPERB FAIRY WREN
Canon 90D f/6.3, 1/2000s, ISO 250, 552mm (883mm eq)
That shot just hurts my eyes.
There is good separation blur where the background is (mostly) indistinguishable and minimal separation blur where the background is distinguishable with minimal blur. There is generally no happy medium - certainly not in this case.
I can't be sure on sharpening but the bird's head feathers look like they have had hot wax combed through them - a common result of over sharpening.Thank you for your thoughts Bryan π
You are the first one ever who has said that image hurts their eyes.
I suspect it might be related to the way your screen is rendering the image. Your screen is most likely calibrated and profiled differently to mine.
The image has a couple of problems that can be corrected to make it less hurtful to some viewers. The accidental placement of intense green leaves behind the bird, and the deep blacks on the plumage. This result is a lot more soothing for my eyes:
Feel free to download it and edit it to whatever soothes your eyes.
@DanHasLeftForum has written: @Bryan has written: @DanHasLeftForum has written:SUPERB FAIRY WREN
Canon 90D f/6.3, 1/2000s, ISO 250, 552mm (883mm eq)
That shot just hurts my eyes.
There is good separation blur where the background is (mostly) indistinguishable and minimal separation blur where the background is distinguishable with minimal blur. There is generally no happy medium - certainly not in this case.
I can't be sure on sharpening but the bird's head feathers look like they have had hot wax combed through them - a common result of over sharpening.Thank you for your thoughts Bryan π
You are the first one ever who has said that image hurts their eyes.
I suspect it might be related to the way your screen is rendering the image. Your screen is most likely calibrated and profiled differently to mine.
The image has a couple of problems that can be corrected to make it less hurtful to some viewers. The accidental placement of intense green leaves behind the bird, and the deep blacks on the plumage. This result is a lot more soothing for my eyes:
Nice edit. It takes care of the blocked up blacks in the feathers that I noted in my response; there's detail easily visible now. I had no complaint about the green in the background, but the less detailed browns/olives are more visually harmonious and let the beauty of the bird stand out more.
Personally I still prefer the green leaves. They help add punch to both the image on my screen and the print.
As a side note, there are numerous Web pages discussing how the colour green might be good for the eyes.
Nice edit. It takes care of the blocked up blacks in the feathers that I noted in my response; there's detail easily visible now.
That's interesting because the blacks are not blocked up in the feathers on my screen or in the print.
Yes, the detail is more easily seen when zoomed in but they aren't blocked up at normal viewing on my screen.
I suspect that sometimes people forget that a given image will not necessarily render exactly the same on every screen for obvious reasons.
@minniev has written:Nice edit. It takes care of the blocked up blacks in the feathers that I noted in my response; there's detail easily visible now.
That's interesting because the blacks are not blocked up in the feathers on my screen or in the print.
Yes, the detail is more easily seen when zoomed in but they aren't blocked up at normal viewing on my screen.
I suspect that sometimes people forget that a given image will not necessarily render exactly the same on every screen for obvious reasons.
Your version:
My version:
You're proving my point that a given image will not necessarily render exactly the same on every screen for obvious reasons.
I can see detail in the black feathers on my screen as described earlier.
I am not doubting they are blocked up on minniev's screen.
You're proving my point hat a given image will not necessarily render exactly the same on every screen for obvious reasons.
The point is that your version has a lot of blocked blacks. The histogram doesn't care about screen differences.
@DanHasLeftForum has written:You're proving my point hat a given image will not necessarily render exactly the same on every screen for obvious reasons.
The point is that your version has a lot of blocked blacks. The histogram doesn't care about screen differences.
What if the dynamic range of the screens differ or if the screen contrast settings are different or if the colour space the image is viewed in is different or if the screen brightness settings are significantly different?
A given image will not necessarily render exactly the same on every screen for obvious reasons.
Your histogram is only for one channel.
Post the luminosity histogram.
In any case blocked up pixels cannot be recovered just like blown highlights cannot be.
Therefore your editing has created false details.
Fwiw this is what I see on my screen when I look at the histogram and edit you posted. There is a lot of false looking purplish and greenish detail there which is not realistic at all.
I still see some details in the black feathers in my version. Whether they are accurate or not I don't know.
People can look at my image and decide for themselves how much, if any, detail they see.