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?
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?
Far out! Awesome reflection...
@Kumsal has written: @MikeFewster has written: @Kumsal has written: @MikeFewster has written: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?
So, you speak on behalf of Mike.
Why do you have this urge?
Mike can answer me himself!
I don't know, it could be a very good photo.
But what is reflected in the eye has nothing to do with reality.
At least in these lighting conditions.
Sorry.
I don't know, it could be a very good photo.
But what is reflected in the eye has nothing to do with reality.
At least in these lighting conditions.
Sorry.
The reality is that the eye is reflecting the scene - albeit fish eye. In the world depicted by our 5 senses, that reflection is indeed a reality...
And I can't fault the lighting conditions - what would the reflection be in lower light???
@Sagittarius has written:I don't know, it could be a very good photo.
But what is reflected in the eye has nothing to do with reality.
At least in these lighting conditions.
Sorry.
This is what has been reflected in the iguana's eye whether you belive it or not.
@Kumsal has written:I don't know, it could be a very good photo.
But what is reflected in the eye has nothing to do with reality.
At least in these lighting conditions.
Sorry.The reality is that the eye is reflecting the scene - albeit fish eye. In the world depicted by our 5 senses, that reflection is indeed a reality...
And I can't fault the lighting conditions - what would the reflection be in lower light???
Excellent!
@Kumsal has written: @Sagittarius has written:I don't know, it could be a very good photo.
But what is reflected in the eye has nothing to do with reality.
At least in these lighting conditions.
Sorry.This is what has been reflected in the iguana's eye whether you belive it or not.
Palm trees like those might be expected in iguana territory. It looks like photographer getting down low to take the shot. That's consistent as well. The distortion of the image on the eye is about what I'd expect of the eyeball curvature. The photographer has the sun behind him and again this is consistent with the light on the iguana.
So yes, I think it is a genuine reflection on the eyeball.
Fascinating image. I think we see YOU, the photographer, kneeling down to capture the image with the pool and palms and sky in the background. The wonderful distortion in the natural globe of its eye is almost like an ultra wide angle lens might provide, or a lens ball. The colors are rich (and quite tropical), and the detail in the crusty reptilian skin is impressive.
I don't know, it could be a very good photo.
But what is reflected in the eye has nothing to do with reality.
At least in these lighting conditions.
I see nothing to suggest a lack of "reality" as Kumsal seems to be suggesting. Perhaps he thinks you may have raised the shadows more than he might have been comfortable with? He seems to find many photographs suspicious in some way.
My personal philosophy: I judge any image presented here based on its impact first, and I don't much care about what the OP did or didn't do. I try to offer, in my feedback, what factors I think affected my impression of it. Each of us brings to the forum our own interests, knowledge, biases, and personality. I believe expressing our personal responses while respecting one another should be our goal.
@MikeFewster has written: @xpatUSA has written: @MikeFewster has written:What is showing here is considerably darker than the original I thought I was posting. It has happened before. Don't know why.
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:
Kumsal's black and white conversion is a fine artistic variation of Mike's submitted image. I may like it even better. It preserves the mystery and makes maximum advantage of that fascinating light rim around the doorway. However, it is not the image Mike asked for feedback on, and for me, creates a very different impression. Both are valid and worthy. I do find the colors in Ted's brightened "gamma" version add more to the original image.
And to answer Mike's question, no, the enlarged version of your original does not look quite as dark as the compressed thumbnail, as could be expected. We have all seen the shortcomings of the compression on the thumbnails of this site, common in the appearance of compressed thumbnails in most forums.
@Kumsal has written: @MikeFewster has written: @xpatUSA has written: @MikeFewster has written:What is showing here is considerably darker than the original I thought I was posting. It has happened before. Don't know why.
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:
Kumsal's black and white conversion is a fine artistic variation of Mike's submitted image. I may like it even better. It preserves the mystery and makes maximum advantage of that fascinating light rim around the doorway. However, it is not the image Mike asked for feedback on, and for me, creates a very different impression. Both are valid and worthy. I do find the colors in Ted's brightened "gamma" version add more to the original image.
And to answer Mike's question, no, the enlarged version of your original does not look quite as dark as the compressed thumbnail, as could be expected. We have all seen the shortcomings of the compression on the thumbnails of this site, common in the appearance of compressed thumbnails in most forums.
My problem with the image brightness is when I look at my chosen image to post here, it looks fine. Then when the post shows up at small size on the thread, it is too dark.
@PeteS has written: @Daneland has written: @PeteS has written:Violent Sculpture
This was taken in Yorckstrasse, Berlin, where, in the space of about 100 yards, about a dozen railway bridges carry railway tracks across the road - almost forming a tunnel. Some of the tracks are still used heavily today by the local trains and the main lines from Berlin to the South.
Almost exactly 80 years ago, in late April 1945, Yorckstrasse was the scene of a savage battle as the Red Army tanks and infantry fought hard to dislodge German defenders, who were using the bridges and pillars as cover in a major defensive position. Today the steel pillar in the photo bears witness to the heat and violence of that battle, but still does its job of holding up the bridge, albeit for one of the disused tracks.
The fading white paint is also a silent witness of the war. Headlights for vehicles were banned, or at least reduced to thin strips of light, by the Black-Out laws of the time to make it harder for enemy bombers to locate cities and targets. (This was the case in Britain too, not just Germany.) The pillars were painted white to help drivers see them in the darkness.A very good piece of documentary, but I don’t want to distract from the image, so I’ll focus on asking about it instead. I’m curious about why you chose this composition and included motion blur.
I wanted to show as much as possible of the "sculpture" in detail, however didn't want it to be just a close up, but to show something of its environment and purpose too. The right hand side establishes it as part of a bridge. I also wanted to show that it was not part of a manicured monument in memory of the war, hence the weeds and rubbish in the foreground to suggest neglect. I also wanted to show it was on a busy road, but a car frozen by a fast shutter speed would distract away from the pillar, hence the motion blur, which I think also helps indicate the road is busy. A dark car would disappear into the shadow, so I waited for a white one. I think the resulting white "blob" on the right visually balances the pillar on the left.
I hope you don’t mind me being critical. I believe your intent is right—to provide context with a broader point of view, completing the story of a single piece by showing where it actually belongs. However, I’m struggling to see the piece as part of the bridge; to me, it just seems to be sticking out of the ground.
Other elements (motion blur, white car, etc.) are fine, they serve well the purpose you intended.
No, I don't mind you being critical - that's why we are here😉
I can see what you mean about the pillar not really being obviously part of the bridge. I wanted the pillar to be large in the frame, otherwise the battle damage would not really be visible, hence the crop. The solution would be to document it as a pair, together with an establishing shot showing the whole bridge, and if I had one, I would post it now. Well, next time I'm in Berlin ...!
@minniev has written: @Kumsal has written: @MikeFewster has written: @xpatUSA has written: @MikeFewster has written:What is showing here is considerably darker than the original I thought I was posting. It has happened before. Don't know why.
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:
Kumsal's black and white conversion is a fine artistic variation of Mike's submitted image. I may like it even better. It preserves the mystery and makes maximum advantage of that fascinating light rim around the doorway. However, it is not the image Mike asked for feedback on, and for me, creates a very different impression. Both are valid and worthy. I do find the colors in Ted's brightened "gamma" version add more to the original image.
And to answer Mike's question, no, the enlarged version of your original does not look quite as dark as the compressed thumbnail, as could be expected. We have all seen the shortcomings of the compression on the thumbnails of this site, common in the appearance of compressed thumbnails in most forums.
My problem with the image brightness is when I look at my chosen image to post here, it looks fine. Then when the post shows up at small size on the thread, it is too dark.
I think now might be the time to suggest that the HTML / CSS for the large thumbnail be changed to span the whole page or the image's full width, whichever is the lesser. This issue of apparent brightness was referred to in This Week Through Your Eyes as well.
As an interim workaround, Arvo might explain to us how he_who_finally_left_thank_god managed to get his images to span the page so we could all do that?
As an interim workaround, Arvo might explain to us how he_who_finally_left_thank_god managed to get his images to span the page so we could all do that?
Upload image, create preview, open it in full screen, copy link, use that as image link on posting, remove original preview code.
I personally would not recommend this approach (this way image won't be displayed in lightbox) - but it is for image author to decide.
@Bryan has written:As an interim workaround, Arvo might explain to us how he_who_finally_left_thank_god managed to get his images to span the page so we could all do that?
Upload image, create preview, open it in full screen, copy link, use that as image link on posting, remove original preview code.
I personally would not recommend this approach (this way image won't be displayed in lightbox) - but it is for image author to decide.
Thanks Arvo.
What do you mean by lightbox?
What do you mean by lightbox?
Our image viewer window or preview popup or how should that be called in english?