Estuary Mud

[John King]

Neutral isn't a matter of opinion. It should be precisely calibrated, using something like the Calibrite puck and software.

For printing, the "norm" is 80cd/m², 5600°K. Similar for displaying on screens.

If you have calibrated your screen, if an image looks wrong to someone else, it is their screen that needs calibrating.

Non the less there will be different appearances on different screens of the same picture and that is what we are dealing with here. The only 'real' way to view a picture to enable you to see the depth of shadows, highlights and the overall appearance, is to have a hard print in front of you where the overall appearance can be see by all those view it. It will be their standard and that is what should be assessed not the electronic trickery used to make it.
If you look at images on a screen there will occasionally be a subject which may not be to you individual liking. There may be nothing you like about it, but there is no need to be acidic about it. Be constructive, not ultra critical, and suggest how it may be improved not say something which sounds like a command and it could be considered an insult to their work.

 

[John King]

I introduced the phrase when I described the image as a "straight forward contre-jour shot" where the emphasis is on the image being straight forward. Call it what you want. The fact is that the angle of the light has enhanced both texture and contrast.

Exactly, spot on!

 

[Toby Webster]

Non the less there will be different appearances on different screens of the same picture and that is what we are dealing with here. The only 'real' way to view a picture to enable you to see the depth of shadows, highlights and the overall appearance, is to have a hard print in front of you where the overall appearance can be see by all those view it. It will be their standard and that is what should be assessed not the electronic trickery used to make it.
If you look at images on a screen there will occasionally be a subject which may not be to you individual liking. There may be nothing you like about it, but there is no need to be acidic about it. Be constructive, not ultra critical, and suggest how it may be improved not say something which sounds like a command and it could be considered an insult to their work.

I'm not sure whether the sentences that I've accentuated in bold are aimed at me or Joanna, but I suspect that latter as Joanna hasn't been critical of the post. In the fresh, clean light of a rather beautiful winter morning, I've carefully read back over this thread and reviewed the comments that I made yesterday. In my original reply I set out, with apologies should I have been wrong, my reservations about the image, most specifically the processing. In subsequent posts I explained, again politely and with apologies, that I find it impossible to see through what I consider to be processing issues to the potential of the image beyond, and tried to explain why. In response I was told that I was being rude, impolite and aggressive, that the problem lay not with the image but with me, and the OP demanded to know what screens I was using to look at it. When I responded, again with apologies for having caused offence, suggested that he post an unprocessed file the better to offer constructive critique, and offered the information he had demanded about my screens, he promptly shut me down.

Now I might not beat about the bush, but I have not been acidic, I have tried very hard to be constructive, and I have neither 'commanded', nor insulted. I have been apologetic. In response I have been told that I am the problem, accused of rudeness and aggression, of being unconstructive, and have been shut down. I would suggest that John has been somewhat thin-skinned over my comments about this post, and I would have loved it far more had he risen to the challenge and posted a copy of the base image. We all might then have learned something, and enjoyed the process.

I think that's about it from me on this one, you'll undoubtedly be relieved to hear. It's been a journey.

 

[ian_s]

The name is Joanna

The problem is trying to capture contre-jour with specular highlights. It's hard to do and the only tool I have found that is capable of making it easier is PhotoLab with its FilmPack add-in.

Sorry, but I abandoned Adobe's ransomware long ago. If I need pixel editing, I use Affinity Photo, which is now totally free. But, for RAW images, DxO's optical modules and noise reduction are far superior to anything else on the market (and that is not just my opinion - read the reviews and comparisons)

Surely, if it makes life easier, why not use it?

A debate about image aesthetics doesn't need to be derailed into tools war. The way you choose to pay (or not) is completely irrelevant FFS as is a need to feel your tool is better than somebody else's ! In politically less sensitive times there was a term to describe this that I won't repeat.

 

[Digital Finger]

A debate about image aesthetics doesn't need to be derailed into tools war. The way you choose to pay (or not) is completely irrelevant FFS as is a need to feel your tool is better than somebody else's ! In politically less sensitive times there was a term to describe this that I won't repeat.

I’d add that if one can be bothered to learn them the apps from gentlemen coders are also extremely cheap, useful and effective if you want to avoid Adobe

 

[Digital Finger]

I'm not sure whether the sentences that I've accentuated in bold are aimed at me or Joanna, but I suspect that latter as Joanna hasn't been critical of the post. In the fresh, clean light of a rather beautiful winter morning, I've carefully read back over this thread and reviewed the comments that I made yesterday. In my original reply I set out, with apologies should I have been wrong, my reservations about the image, most specifically the processing. In subsequent posts I explained, again politely and with apologies, that I find it impossible to see through what I consider to be processing issues to the potential of the image beyond, and tried to explain why. In response I was told that I was being rude, impolite and aggressive, that the problem lay not with the image but with me, and the OP demanded to know what screens I was using to look at it. When I responded, again with apologies for having caused offence, suggested that he post an unprocessed file the better to offer constructive critique, and offered the information he had demanded about my screens, he promptly shut me down.

Now I might not beat about the bush, but I have not been acidic, I have tried very hard to be constructive, and I have neither 'commanded', nor insulted. I have been apologetic. In response I have been told that I am the problem, accused of rudeness and aggression, of being unconstructive, and have been shut down. I would suggest that John has been somewhat thin-skinned over my comments about this post, and I would have loved it far more had he risen to the challenge and posted a copy of the base image. We all might then have learned something, and enjoyed the process.

I think that's about it from me on this one, you'll undoubtedly be relieved to hear. It's been a journey.

Having read through this thread I can’t see where Toby had been anything but helpful and accurate.
I find I agree with what he says and don’t understand the reaction or reticence to take his advice on board.