I pointed out the misquoting by striking out what I didn't say.
I posted earlier how to use quotes directly.
I also said that yes, anyone can make an honest mistake once but doing it again will be seen as deliberate and corrected.
If people don't want their posts corrected then simply don't misquote me. It's that simple.
But the problem is not everyone sees as a flaw what in your opinion is a flaw.
Just because the photo hurts your eyes but no-one else's afaik does not mean there is a flaw in the photo.
As I posted earlier, I consider feedback from everywhere my images are viewable.
The image has a couple of problems that can be corrected to make it less hurtful to some viewers. The accidental placement of intense green leaves behind the bird, and the deep blacks on the plumage. This result is a lot more soothing for my eyes:
Feel free to download it and edit it to whatever soothes your eyes.
Nice edit. It takes care of the blocked up blacks in the feathers that I noted in my response; there's detail easily visible now. I had no complaint about the green in the background, but the less detailed browns/olives are more visually harmonious and let the beauty of the bird stand out more.
Personally I still prefer the green leaves. They help add punch to both the image on my screen and the print.
As a side note, there are numerous Web pages discussing how the colour green might be good for the eyes.
That's interesting because the blacks are not blocked up in the feathers on my screen or in the print.
Yes, the detail is more easily seen when zoomed in but they aren't blocked up at normal viewing on my screen.
I suspect that sometimes people forget that a given image will not necessarily render exactly the same on every screen for obvious reasons.
Your version:
My version:
You're proving my point that a given image will not necessarily render exactly the same on every screen for obvious reasons.
I can see detail in the black feathers on my screen as described earlier.
I am not doubting they are blocked up on minniev's screen.
The point is that your version has a lot of blocked blacks. The histogram doesn't care about screen differences.
What if the dynamic range of the screens differ or if the screen contrast settings are different or if the colour space the image is viewed in is different or if the screen brightness settings are significantly different?
A given image will not necessarily render exactly the same on every screen for obvious reasons.
Your histogram is only for one channel.
Post the luminosity histogram.
In any case blocked up pixels cannot be recovered just like blown highlights cannot be.
Therefore your editing has created false details.
Fwiw this is what I see on my screen when I look at the histogram and edit you posted. There is a lot of false looking purplish and greenish detail there which is not realistic at all.
I still see some details in the black feathers in my version. Whether they are accurate or not I don't know.
People can look at my image and decide for themselves how much, if any, detail they see.
The histogram doesn't care about those things. It represents only the pixel values.
Mine has emphasized the difference between hard black and not hard black - a difference that was basically indiscernible in yours by me and by other viewers who have posted opinions about it.
I don't know either, but the changes I made make the viewing experience better for me.
That's correct. When I look at your other photos in this thread (Ovens River, moon) I also see blocked blacks with little detail. Histograms of them would show that as well. So ... either you like that look, or you don't like it but your monitor is showing differences in a way that my monitor and some other monitors are not.
If you're happy with your edit and it soothes your eyes as you said that's fine.
But I don't like the purplish and green false details I see in your edit on my screen as shown earlier.
I am happy with the level of detail I can see in my version on my screen. I can't control how my images render on other people's screens.
So we are in agreement that a given image will not necessarily render exactly the same on every screen, which is what I said earlier.
I do not disagree with that. My inclusion of histograms was to quantify the actual difference in pixel values between your version and mine.
That's fine.
As I said, if you are happy with your edit and it soothes your eyes as you said, I have no issue with that.
I posted why I still prefer my original version.
A fascinating photo!
What are the strips of what looks like foil hanging down at the top?
David
First, the photo from Pete is really interesting. Such old, well cared for, steam trains are a joy to see. Even if they are grimy and uncomfortable by today's standards ;-)
A visit to that area is also a great chance to taste the Darjeeling tea close to the source :-)
As to David's question, I'm guessing the golden strips are there to freighten away the birds in the roof of the station, or perhaps just to decorate the area ?
