* Wednesday C&C "No Theme" Thread #863 / Revived #083 on 2024 10 30 *

While I like the composition as shown, I think I would like it even better with just a bit more dark ground on the bottom, as a stronger baseline.

Agree. That sky is surreal.

Pleased to see the rectangles get noticed. The image is full of rectangles and part rectangles. I was very aware of them and their positioning when I took the shot.

At the same or smaller equivalent exposure I have no difficulty in getting a natural looking sky.

Maybe Chris shot sooc jpeg and the camera picture style settings outputted a dark sky?

You can see Chris' exif data in his post at

dprevived.com/t/this-week-through-your-eyes-20241102/6399/post/87562/

This is a similar scene with a very similar exposure* that Chris used and the sky looks ok on my screen.

f/8, 1/2000s, ISO 100

* exposure - amount of light striking the sensor per unit area during a shutter actuation.

The foreground is uninspiring and doesn't interest me in any way.

If you like it that is fine.

Not everyone sees and interprets images the same way and that is the way it should be.

I'm running with the cropped version.

That is basically a rinse and repeat of your initial opinions. That is fine.

I did look at and think about the whole image before forming my opinion of it.

I still disagree about the foreground for the reasons posted earlier.

My instant reaction was to look for the dogs as in that iconic picture from a long time ago. I went looking for it to refresh my memory and all I could find were imitations...

I have to ask what is the pretty coloured stick like object in the bottom right corner?

A pleasant image that invokes a sense of serenity, calmness. The mist conveys the early part of the day with no breeze and little sun to burn it off. The deer seems aware of your presence.

I think there are times of the day, especially close to sun up / sun down where there are changes in the natural light that our mind may filter out but the camera catches.

Wonderful specimen. Great detail shows off the colour variations and intricacies of his scales, skin folds and incredible head.
The tree roots and clutter on the ground show his environment. The food in and around the bowl, although integral to the image, is the outlier.

I adore that church. It is as if a mental image acquired from a story has come to life. I don't know if it is the phone processing or the architecture (brickwork, lines and colours) or both. Minnie mentioned a postcard. When I view it, it is as if I am looking at a real 3D scene. Not many photos convey that much depth. The colours of sky only add to it...

To catch a sky like that is one thing but to get the location and industrial aspects with it is another. Well done.

I like it, whether I may or may not be a customer of Fat Joes. The artwork stands out but there is also the bold oranges and yellows. I like the sometimes bold but mostly pastel colours of California.

Thanks Chris. I tried a touch of sharpening but the bright reflections on the feathers didn't like it. I was happy with the soft leaf blur.

Thanks minniev,

Soon I hope to have some pp up to the task of raising shadows and masking etc.

I never thought of the photo as a political statement but you are right about native forest versus re-forested areas. We don't even notice the hollows until we see the wildlife utilising them.

Thank you Roel,

Maybe a "smidge" more might help but it just comes down to personal taste.

No need to tell me what exposure is and your example is not the one I was talking about.

Here's the image I was talking about:

I just now downloaded and examined my example in the GIMP. My comment was based on the Exposure Value for the camera settings, f/4, 1/6400, 200 ISO which come to almost 18 Ev which is 2 EV more than bright sunlight, see here which explains why 2 EV more means under-exposed. However, the virtually zero-contrast sky is not explained by my previous comment, grump. Cranking up the sky contrast to the max brought out zero cloud detail.

I conclude that something untoward happened in post-processing but, in answer to your question, I have no idea what.

In Chris' photo the same exposure, as defined earlier, using f/8 as in my photo is f/8, 1/1600s.

I used a slightly smaller exposure of f/8, 1/2000s and the sky looks ok.

The point I was making is that the sky was not underexposed (according to the definition of exposure I use) as you claimed because the exposure I used in my example was the same or smaller than the exposures Chris used in his 3 photos and my sky is just fine.

I suggested the sky in Chris' photos might be due to post processing of the raw data.

Whether it was done in camera or manually I don't lnow.