For me our viewer seems not to work after navigating between pages (this needs to report to Martin).
This has been the case for a long time.
Another problem is when one clicks to go to the last post, it goes to the last page (but at the top!)
Best,
David
What we need to do with these is log them in the Requests, Help and Bugs Found thread.
That is the formal way where site devs can see them, address them and tick them off.
The devs aren't necessarily reading every thread. I know I have been guilty of raising issues in these general threads too...
I like the brutality of what is done to a very solid structure. It speaks volumes about the nature of war.
It's good that they kept it this way.
My take on the motion blur is that Pete wanted to show that this is in an urban setting (not in some sterile museum or monument), while not distracting from the pillar with recognizable traffic.
Lovely light makes the most of the texture and surface of this sign.
I wonder why you would think that.
There should be great liberty in giving titles to photographs and art in general.
Titles do not have to be strictly descriptive. They can be suggestive.
And in this case, I think the title is appropriate.
Because this looks like it could have been sculpted by an artist as abstract art.
(Possibly a bronze cast by someone like Anthony Gormley of a magnification of part of a clay sketch by Rodin.)
But instead the object has been "sculpted" by sheer anonymous violence.
It is a powerful statement to find beauty in the aftermath of horror.
It seems I have expressed myself too radically.
Of course, I do not disregard comments on technical issues.
It's just that they are always a secondary consideration for me.
All opinions are welcome here, also those that concentrate on aspects that I value less.
That is also why I took the time to respond.
What I like less, however, was the fact that the commentator did not limit his comment to his opinion (technically bad image - fair enough), but that he found it useful to include a perception about the dynamics in this forum. In that, he did not speak about the image or its (de)merits, but was suggesting that opinions expressed here are not honest. And that I choose not to believe. I don't see any reason to make such comment.
I agree with this crop suggestion.
Sometimes it is useful to maintain the impression of a "tunnel vision" towards something meaningful.
But I believe the core of this image translate such impression well enough, without most of the top, bottom, left and right.
It would be different if on those edges there were layers and layers, going deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole.
But most of it is solid wall or solid greenery.
I would consider a pretty intense crop, keeping just the innermost slivers of the "tunnel" segments.
And then I think I would be placing the lit doorframe not central, but quite high in the image, to make the light reflection look more prominent than it already is.
Good natural frame to enhance a timeless looking image.
I like the human figure, but sadly, the temporary traffic sign is an attention-magnet.
Great reflection in that eye, clearly shot with a very long lens. We can say hi to the photographer!
I recently tried something similar in a zoo, with a crocodile basking on the water's edge of his territory.
I was close. If there had been no glass, I could have touched him (and he could have eaten me).
My shot is not nearly as good as this one. Just no contest.
Thank you everybody for looking and commenting. Though magicians do not reveal their secrets, this is a photography forum. The lens was Nikkor Z 24-200 on Nikon Z 7 II. The eye has been cropped out from a bigger picture and processed in Topaz to upscale.
Here is the picture
Gee, I didn't realize the Pandora's box I was opening when noted the unexpected darkness of my post.
I don't want to get over defensive about my own image. We all see what we all see. The image as it showed up after the OP was made is, misleading, as I immediately noted with an edit. It's too dark. I'd have posted it again but xpatUSA kindly did it for me. In the dark version, the whole point of the surrounds is lost and yes, in this case, I'd agree with Roel and Kumsal that it might as well be heavily cropped.
As seen when brighter, finding the concrete tunnel running through from the vegetation, is unexpected and part of the point. Looking down it a shape is seen and when more colely examined, we understand what it is. Cropping to the monochrome tunnel seemed too obvious and less interesting. It might have been in a shopping mall. Well, that's how I saw it anyway.
But I'm pleased it's sparked off the discussion about the display of posted images. I've had similar disappointments before with what I thought I was posting and what showed up in the thumbnai.
