* Wednesday C&C "No Theme" Thread #845 / Revived #065 on 2024 06 26 *

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.

The histogram doesn't care about those things. It represents only the pixel values.

Mine has emphasized the difference between hard black and not hard black - a difference that was basically indiscernible in yours by me and by other viewers who have posted opinions about it.

I don't know either, but the changes I made make the viewing experience better for me.

That's correct. When I look at your other photos in this thread (Ovens River, moon) I also see blocked blacks with little detail. Histograms of them would show that as well. So ... either you like that look, or you don't like it but your monitor is showing differences in a way that my monitor and some other monitors are not.

If you're happy with your edit and it soothes your eyes as you said that's fine.

But I don't like the purplish and green false details I see in your edit on my screen as shown earlier.

I am happy with the level of detail I can see in my version on my screen. I can't control how my images render on other people's screens.

So we are in agreement that a given image will not necessarily render exactly the same on every screen, which is what I said earlier.

I do not disagree with that. My inclusion of histograms was to quantify the actual difference in pixel values between your version and mine.

That's fine.

As I said, if you are happy with your edit and it soothes your eyes as you said, I have no issue with that.

I posted why I still prefer my original version.

First, the photo from Pete is really interesting. Such old, well cared for, steam trains are a joy to see. Even if they are grimy and uncomfortable by today's standards ;-)
A visit to that area is also a great chance to taste the Darjeeling tea close to the source :-)
As to David's question, I'm guessing the golden strips are there to freighten away the birds in the roof of the station, or perhaps just to decorate the area ?

I like this image Mike. The areas in question can be easily removed using a chromatic aberration correction. I realize from reading many many posts that this is a result of using Topaz and not camera induced chromatic aberration. Never the less the tool works well and can be used to get rid of the orange colour between the hair strands.
Andrew

[quote="@MikeFewster"]
EMU. Central Australia.

At eye level with Emu and the backlighting helps make this photo different from what we usually see.
I like it.

[quote="@minniev"]
Icefields Highway (wish I was there now instead of here in 110 degree heat). One from the archives, so old it was taken with the venerable E30. I never did anything with the picture because there was a worrisome distraction I could not get rid of without making major alterations in the scene, but the sky and light were so dramatic I couldn't delete it. So yesterday I decided to see whether the new lightroom tools would salvage it, and this is the result. Still a few nits but I'm better satisfied with it.

Magnificent landscape, very well photographed.
Whatever was necessary to eliminate the disturbing elements is justified in this case.

[quote="@ChrisOly"]
High density

Massive residential development is happening in downtown Toronto recently.

It's a loaded photo with a lot of architectural elements.
But, it caught my attention to take a closer look at the photo.
Well done!

Good correction and good information - that the CA tools can solve other problems.

Thanks, Kumsal, I feel the same way. I don't hesitate to use any tool available to solve a problem that can't be solved with the camera itself.

Imo an image creator removing disturbing elements is justifiable in every case unless the aim is to create a close as possible documentary version.

Outstanding. One of those rare "breaks every rule in the book" images that finishes up being brilliant because it has broken all the rules. Composition lines running all over the place; eye attracting features and potential subject points that conflict with each other. And so on.
Congrats Kumsal.

Yes, that is a definite improvement. I'll adjust the original version I have.

An extraordinary natural feature and a wonderful subject for a photographer.
This is an interesting post. Generally with a series we look to see a story that requires the sequence to make the point. This group from Fireplace takes us into the head of the photographer. Fireplace gives us the thoughts and settings with each shot as he/she considers different angles and settings to capture the spirit of the location.
Generally, I like moving water shots to either totally freeze the moment so we can study the intricacies or to have some blur to convey the movement. I don't like too much blur which reduces the movement to something that looks static. Here, Fireplace gets it about right to my eye and shares the thinking as the settings are chosen.
I like the the last best. The portrait format, narrow contrasting gap and multitude of repeating lines of waterfall, are all reinforcing each other. We can feel the movement and the constriction.