That shows your clear lack of understanding of colour management, what affects it and what doesn't and how to implement it properly.
Earlier this thread you mentioned you saw purple in some parts of the image I posted. I replied saying I don't doubt you see purple on your screen but in those same parts I see no purple on my screen.
On the contrary I understand color management well. Every time anybody says something about colors in you images, you immediately reply that they see image differently from as you see it. If this is true, any discussion is senseless. BTW not only me see blueish/purplish patches in your image. But they are not present in your documentary image as I see it.
There have been many situations where the colours I see on my screen after editing are not significantly different to what other people see.
But you seeing some purple in one particular image on your screen is significantly different to what I see on my screen as described earlier.
Not everyone sees the purple you see.
Yup.
I see the "purple" very well. My background is professional image scanning and reproduction. Highly accurate replicas of artwork. I know my way around color management. I've been heavily involved since the release of ICC profiles in the late 1990s.
My monitors and printers are very accurately calibrated and profiled.
Color management doesn't "guarantee" that all colors will look "identical" on all devices. It assures that every device is performing as it best can. And in today's level of equipment, that means that properly profiled devices will look so similar that the differences aren't worth talking about.
The "questionable" areas measure roughly between Lab* 15,-5,-7 to 7,-12,-15. Smack dab in the region most individuals with normal vision would call "purple."
Fortunately, you and I, with well calibrated and profiled equipment see the same color. As do the others here. Except one.
Edit: The forum text formatting code can't handle the correct spelling of the Lab color space.
Rich
The photo was taken a few years ago now and I consider feedback from everywhere the photo is viewable, not just from a small number of contributors here on dprevived.
Everyone who says they are using a calibrated and profiled monitor say it has been correctly profiled and calibrated but clearly not when I hear of significant discrepancies in the colours that are seen.
I have no way of verifying who actually have had their screens properly calibrated and profiled.
From all the feedback I have received from people saying they are using properly calibrated and profiled monitors very few have significant colour differences from what I see on my screen.
As I said, I don't doubt you see purple but not everyone sees the purple you see.
If you don't like the purple that's fine. I have no issue with that but I have no reason to change it because it will most likely screw it up for those that like the colour they see on those parts.
I like them because they help add depth to the background. When I make them greener to blend more into the rest of the background it makes the background look too flat for my liking.
You can escape asterisks with backslash (\): L*a*b* (type this as L\*a\*b\*), or you may just use code formatting, placing text inside backticks (`): L*a*b*.
Or just use the [code] L*a*b* [/code] tags. This outputs
L*a*b*To me, this image is quite odd, because it feels almost like background and foreground have switched places.
The background seems to be a long exposure waterfall. Could be a good image.
The foreground seems like an assortment of twigs that got in the way of the actual image.
With the extra information/interpretation guidance that you gave us, I can vaguely see what you are hinting at, but not enough to really hold my interest.
It's the fence that gives this image the edge.
The landscape is a classic succession of layers. Beautiful.
The fence adds interest, because it keeps the viewer separated from the beauty of the landscape.
It's like we can look but not touch.
It reminded me of that old song, "Don't Fence Me In".
A Bing Crosby and The Andrews Sisters classic.
But I like the David Byrne version on the tribute album:
[/quote]
Funny, he acknowledges them in reply to Mike. But now it is about liking them or not, not seeing them.
You are not telling the truth because I never said I didn't see the elements you referred to.
I acknowledged that you see purple where I said I see bluish/green on my screen and that the bluish/green is what I wanted.
In reply to the elements you encircled in red I said -
Mike describes them as bluish, not purple.
Does it matter? Just different color perception. But they are still there which you denied. I am done spending my time on the useless argument. I understand that it takes two to tango, so now you are on your own.
It matters when you make things up and not tell the truth as you did above.
That's one of your more ridiculous posts you made because that is the same as if someone posted you were denying the bluish/green was there.
I acknowledged you see purple on your screen where I see bluish/green. Where you see purple Mike says he sees bluish .
Nowhere have I denied you see purple where I see bluish/green.
Earlier I said -
And yet you chimed back in with
which I subsequently showed is nonsense.
You are the one who tried to argue by chiming back in.
I am not arguing with you. I acknowledged you see purple in the image I posted. You are the one who seems to struggle with the fact not everyone sees purple where you see purple on your screen.
Guys,
Relax.
I am getting kinda blue from all this talk about purple.
Here are two cultural recommendations for you both :
Let’s not forget the greatest jazz album ever recorded, “Kinda Blue” by Miles Davis and its most important track(s), “So What.”
Rich