* Wednesday C&C "No Theme" Thread #850 / Revived #070 on 2024 07 31 *

I disagree.

Yes, I agree with

which means the discussion of images including both their aesthetics and technical attributes.

but Roel also says

Which sentences in my post are not consistent, in your opinion, with the way Roel describes how this thread works in his O.P.?

If people do not want edited versions reposted then it is very quick and simple to follow the above instructions to notify other members and I will abide by them.

** I use bold type for emphasis and as a summary of my post. It is not considered shouting by everyone and not by me. Capital letters apart from headings is commonly interpreted as shouting.

Count me as one in favour of content and atmosphere (emotional impact) related comments.
Also about composition.
Because that corresponds with my personal focus.
But I do also value technical and PP feedback.
And for that, a thoughtful and respectful edit can be the easiest way to convey an idea.
Emphasis between those two approaches is a matter of ebb and flow.
I’ve been seeing this for many years already.
It ebbs and flows with who the contributors are in a certain period.
Just ride the waves, is all I can say.

Totally agree Roel 😊

I will add that this thread, since I first joined it more than a decade ago, has always been a big tent - images from any camera, of any subject, processed/edited in any manner have always been welcome. Feedback about images - positive, negative, mixed, focusing on framing, composition, artistic merit, technical concerns, processing, with or without edits - have always been welcome. My own primary interest at this point in my journey is story implied in the images and the back and forth discussion of artistic issues. But I acknowledge that it is helpful to me to look at images from others' points of view as well. When I first started submitting images to the original group (some of whom are still here and partners in this effort), I was at a different place in my journey; what I needed/wanted/shared in the group has changed over time. We are all different.

I hope the big tent will remain in place, and our group holds strong. There is strength in diversity.

A big tent indeed. And that is how it should be.

Thank you Chris. The comment about looking like a painting is very pleasing to me since much of my editing is geared to create that effect. When someone says that, I feel rather victorious!

Thank you David. I am always looking for a bird to participate in my photos!

Thank you for your thoughts and demo! I don't think it works with that much cropped off, though, maybe a little more than I already had removed, but the form and shape of the waterline is needed to anchor, define and balance the scene. One thing I could experiment with is using AI to fill in more grass in that ugly sand-line. I haven't done much experimenting with the AI stuff now in PS, but possibly I should. As for the contrast and color adjustment you've demonstrated, I like what it did for the clouds but it turnt the sky too cyan for me. (Those who have shared with me for a long while probably know I have an innate visual prejudice against cyan skies, and purples/magentas in general).

Thanks Pete. Yes, an early wake up almost always rewards us but we fight against it!

I'll try your white point suggestion, for a subtle improvement. And try to wake up the clouds a bit more. I will keep the foreground (which is more ugly than lackluster), but it serves an important function. As I mentioned to Dan, I may see what AI might do with adding extra grass. I am innately suspicious of AI but I can see using it in a similar way to other methods to remove or revise distractions.

You are absolutely right, Rich.

Sure, we all edit our photos before posting them here.

But the edited photos should not jump out at you and scream: I have been edited in Photoshop.

A photographer has an eye for lighting conditions, he knows about light and shadow, and also about tonalities.

If these conditions are shifted completely wrong in Photoshop, then the photographer has created an unnatural result.

This is done repeatedly in this forum.

This photo shows pleasant peace and beauty.
I would have loved to be there just to admire this landscape.

A good photo, but the fox is somehow too small for a main subject.
The background is busy and distracts from the subject.

Intersting perspective, works for me.

I had to look at the photo in its original size to appreciate how good the photo is.
Well done!

That's interesting minniev because I said that I liked the colours in the clouds and sky and the scenery on the right and so I didn’t alter those at all.

All I did was crop the bottom as shown which then emphasises the clouds and sky much more in the scene. The only other thing I did was downsize the image for fast uploading to here.

I don’t know which working colour space you used on your computer when you created your joeg but I set my cropped edit to sRGB before exporting the cropped jpeg.

The colours in the sky and clouds in your jpeg and my cropped edit look the same on my screen.

Thank you for your opinions.

If the unnatural look was for artistic intentions and it is what the image creator aimed for then there is nothing wrong because the desired result was achieved.

The only question then is does anyone viewing the artistic image like it or not and to what extent.

It is clear from this and recent threads here and elsewhere that some people like the artistic images and some do not.

If you need to be taken seriously perhaps fix up your own images before falsely claiming other people's images are fake or wrong as you have done recently. I can post screenshots of your false recent claims if your memory needs refreshing.

That is indeed interesting! Being a curious person, I wanted to explore this more. The colors in our two versions look different to me in your post, and if both in that same post are downloaded and sampled, the blue values sample differently in the same spot, so I don't think it is color space. (I learned the hard way that diverging from sRGB is dangerous once you get ready to post or print, unless you are managing your own printers, print materials, and monitors.) I double checked and yes, my image was exported out of PS as a jpeg in sRGB.

Since you use PS Elements and I use PS 24, does that suggest that the two have different color default or other behaviors? Is there some preset built into PSE that would alter the colors, albeit slightly? Did you make some other adjustment that may have changed the values as a side effect? I am fine with anyone editing my images any way they want, so I'm not quibbling about any changes made, just always curious about things photographic...

Sometimes, a photographer deliberately creates unrealistic images. Lighting or color may be some of the traits that might be altered to get the unrealistic look they are seeking. So a composite with errant lighting could be purposeful for effect, or it could be lack of skill. If we like the effect, we should be honest about why we like it. If we don't like the effect we should be honest about why we don't. But we cannot assume the reason for it unless the photographer explains whether or not he/she is trying for a realistic look.

Like you, I prefer for lighting and color in images to make sense to me visually. But as we see, that is not the case for everyone. Some people may take issue with my use of texture overlays, or with my creative composites, but some others enjoy them. I have trouble appreciating slanted buildings and horizons and it is hard for me to visually appreciate lens distortions, though many excellent photographers use these tools for effect. The fact that we have differences of opinion is what makes the conversation interesting. But it does require that we respect each other's differences while defending our own.

Minnie and Roel,

Continuing on with your Big Tent metaphor, I just offer this one regarding tents, camels and noses:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel%27s_nose

Be careful about such things.

Rich

Love the story.

It is indeed a delicate dance. The strength of the core is of vital importance.

You are right. Although the colours between the 2 images look just about indistinguishable on my screen they are not exactly the same.

I overlaid on separate layers my cropped jpeg with your original jpeg minus the bit I cropped off. I set the blend mode to "difference". If the rgb values for corresponding pixels matched exactly you end up with each pixel being rgb(0,0,0).

You can see from the screenshot below the skies in top right region are not an exact match, but very close to each other. The rest of the pixels match pretty much if you look at the rgb values but not exactly. With most of the blended layer being pretty much black it shows the colours in the 2 images match very closely but not exactly as you noticed.

When I imported your jpeg into PSE, the rgb values in your sRGB jpeg were reassigned to Adobe RGB, being my default working colour space. I suppose the rgb values in your sRGB do not map exactly to Adobe RGB but very closely. For example RGB (0,255,0), pure green, maps to a slightly different green depending on whether you are in sRGB or Adobe RGB.