* Wednesday C&C "No Theme" Thread #874 / Revived #094 on 2025 01 15*

Amen to Pete's analysis.
When I looked at minniev's photo it reminded me of something. It took a while for my neurons to link up. I went back to look at the photo again.
John Everett Millais' Ophelia. Ok, minniev's lacks Ophelia, but otherwise....

It is interesting to compare Kumsal's photo with Alan's second image this week. Looking at them as abstract shapes and blocks of colour, they are almost the same shot. I agree with Daneland but I'd take a little off the bottom for the same reason David and Daneland have suggested a crop off the bottom of Alan's image 2.

The tilted tree simile from Daneland is spot on. It's a simile?
I like the three of them. The merest of washed out blues along with all the B&W in 1 and 2 adds cold my skin feels. There's an untidiness in the masses of fine detail in the three of them that makes them all feel bleaker. The river in 1 and 3 beckons deeper into the leafless arms of the trees. It's a black river. These aren't the grand scale winter landscapes that Fireplace shares, this is a landscape that's more intimate so I feel cold here rather than awe.
Much as I like B&W, I think I prefer 2 in colour. The brown reeds I think might get lost in B&W, There's no point of subject here. It is a study with four horizontal bands . In the middle two bands, I think B&W would lose definition whereas the faded brown still emerges. A really good B&W conversion, with careful control to distinguish the tones and then made into a large print, might be able to bring this off.

Nope, leave the lampost. There are lots of them on both sides of the road for it to visually link up with and besides, the housing on the top is talking happily with tops of the domes. But remove the sign. It doesn't link with anything and has become a visual blot.
If it was available, a touch more height would be nice. The sliver of arch at the top feels too thin. Or maybe if no more is available at the top, crop the sides in a bit more.
I'm halfway through Graham Greene's The Third Man so an older Black and White photo of Vienna is very appealing to me. I look at the shot and hear Harry Lime whistling. Along with the reducing lamps, The tonal progression from the solid blacks of the arch to the light greys of the domes is atmospheric. The progression down the slushy road does the same.
The kind of shot that will have growing historical relevance.

Just as minniev has said.
Some local knowledge. What Bryan has caught brings out plumage details that show this is a young magpie probably in its first year. On the older birds, the blacks become glossier and less mottled. Possibly not. There are regional differences between magpies and I'm more familiar with the South Australian version.

Everything that minniev has said. It must be the week for fog images and I'm envious. I like shooting in fog and rarely get an opportunity.
A coup;e more points. The lamp and the large bare tree, aided by the portrait format, frame the bench. While we don't actually see the view, which is somewhat to the left at ten o'clock, the space in front of the bench, implies it is there.
The parallel between the back pf the bench with its line of verticals and another line of verticals on the bare hedge, is important in linking foreground and background and pointing us to 10 o'clock and the unseen vista.
Seen large, what I think are patches of snow, tell more about the season and why the bench is empty.
A worthwhile candidate for the empty bench series, filled with all the poignancy that is the point of this theme.

I respect your opinion, but it's not just about emotions.
I think you're on the wrong track.
It's like eating at McDonald's with your family or eating at a good restaurant.
Emotionally, both are good, but very different.
You're just serving us McDonald's.

+1 to that ...

Ted, don't worry about me.
I am modest enough about my own cooking abilities and always value the culinary opinion of a 3 Michelin-star chef.

Thanks minniev and Mike. Yes you are correct Mike - it's a juvenile and I'm guessing less than a year. It's one of two families in the area - one with one chick, the other with two. There is a third pair but I haven't seen any chicks with them - or they may just be odd ones that didn't bread.

Long shot but I too had that for a while ... my editor, the GIMP, was posting images in Linear mode without gamma, which makes them look dark especially in the shadows. So here's how your posted image looks with gamma applied:

I simulated 2.2 gamma in Curves so it is not perfect but it is good enough for the purpose of illustration, I reckon.

May be a red herring but, in the XMP metadata of your post, the tag ToneCurveName 2012 states "Linear" ... not being an Adobe user, I have no idea what that signifies.

Another variable is the Black Point, however your stuff sets it ...

Many thanks xpatUSA. Your edit is very close to what I expected from the post, a touch lighter but considerably better than is showing on the small size on the site. Definitely good enough for purposes of illustration. As you have adjusted it I'm also quite happy with the bright area top right whereas I was wincing because of the more extreme contrast as seen on my original post drew too much attention that way.
I'm an Adobe user but I have no idea what your quote from the exif means either.
A question folks. If you look at my original at large size, does it look as dark as the smaller shot?

To be honest, I would have expected such a result from this photo:

I'm not sure what you are getting at here Kumsal. Your edit is considerably darker than my original post. I quite like B&W treatment and the crop but I prefer my original crop. To me. the extra foliage around the frame gives a feeling of place. Then I think a viewer will find the figure via the lines and bright far rectangle. The reason I like the original is because here, to me, the subject becomes a discovery.

The question is whether the overexposed foliage in the upper area contributes anything.
You actually have a photo that doesn't really draw attention in terms of colors.
But it's your decision.

That was not the question.

Mike asked: A question folks. If you look at my original at large size, does it look as dark as the smaller shot?