* Wednesday C&C "No Theme" Thread #865 / Revived #085 on 2024 11 13 *

Alan, when it comes to nuances, we should talk about the quality of the screens.
The question is: do you really have a screen that can display your photos properly?
It obviously depends on the money you spend.

Sure, the phones can take good pictures.
But, there are still stark differences.
With so little sensor and glass, no computer can keep up.

Very good!
The photo draws me in to take a closer look.
Well photographed.

Not even an iPhone, just an old 6MP Samsung SkyRocket shot being kept up very well by my old Dell on my old NEC Multisync:

Best viewed opened in new Tab.

So much for blanket statements ... 😉

Are you confusing me with someone else? I rarely say other people's images should have the shadows brightened. Usually I have been defending photos from others where Dan's edits, in my opinion, have over brightened shadows and in so doing often lost depth. Not this week's image from Dan though where I thought it was underexposed. How does the exposure on Dan's panorama this week look to you on your monitor?
I often find my initial posts to Dprev look too dark when I preview and only look at them at small size. Then later, after posting, when I look at images at full size, they look better. I find the same with other people's images as well as my own. This week, my image didn't look bright enough on preview so I boosted it a bit and reposted without doing a check. I agreed with those who said it was too bright and revisited it.
I note that you are making the same comment to a number of different images from different participants. Which raises the question of whose monitor is off?
Or it may be a matter of taste. If you like, we can begin a discussion on what the eye sees when it looks at a scene, what a camera sees when it looks at the same scene (they are quite different) and the decisions made when we turn what the camera has captured into an image. It is likely to be a lengthy chat so if you want to proceed, we might do it elsewhere rather than block up this week's C&C.

Despite the heavy cropping and blurriness, it's a good photo!
A photo doesn't always have to be technically very good.

Agreed. You must have posted this while I was writing my response to Kumsal. If Kumsal wants to have the discussion, I'm happy to take it up and I'd be expanding on similar points to those you have made here. But I don't think this thread is the place to continue. If K wants to proceed, could you initiate a new thread in a more appropriate place. If so, let's do it quickly while the conversation can be conducted civilly in the absence of some potential participants.

Thank you. This snip shows the sky through the slit of open beak that I commented on in my reply to Bryan.

Agreed.
But if the only criticism is that the shadows should be lightened, then I'll remember it.
No need to go any further, I'm always in favor of deep shadows because it makes every photo rich in contrast.

In this case, I probably would have said the whole image needed brightening. What you have captured, at least as it looks on my monitor, isn't the way your eye would have seen this scene. If you want to proceed with this discussion, say so and we can look for an appropriate corner of Dprevived to continue. I think it is a discussion worth having.

Actually, the whole photo is blurry.
Where can you see the color blue between the beaks?
Am I colorblind?

That's what I was talking about.
The car is perfectly exposed on both my systems, Apple and Microsoft.
I don't need any more details in the shadows, they are irrelevant.

As to Lisbon Street V.2. The camera settings indicate perhaps 1/3 EV overexposure for that scene, according to en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exposure_value I make the Ev 14-2/3 reasonable enough if the aim was to show the shadows mo' better.

Drifting off a bit, it is bothersome when people confuse the brightness of a processed image with sensor exposure ...

I said:
Despite the heavy cropping and blurriness, it's a good photo!
A photo doesn't always have to be technically very good.

I admit: technically it's a mediocre photo.
But good nonetheless.