* Wednesday C&C "No Theme" Thread #874 / Revived #094 on 2025 01 15*

Just as minniev has said.
Some local knowledge. What Bryan has caught brings out plumage details that show this is a young magpie probably in its first year. On the older birds, the blacks become glossier and less mottled. Possibly not. There are regional differences between magpies and I'm more familiar with the South Australian version.

Everything that minniev has said. It must be the week for fog images and I'm envious. I like shooting in fog and rarely get an opportunity.
A coup;e more points. The lamp and the large bare tree, aided by the portrait format, frame the bench. While we don't actually see the view, which is somewhat to the left at ten o'clock, the space in front of the bench, implies it is there.
The parallel between the back pf the bench with its line of verticals and another line of verticals on the bare hedge, is important in linking foreground and background and pointing us to 10 o'clock and the unseen vista.
Seen large, what I think are patches of snow, tell more about the season and why the bench is empty.
A worthwhile candidate for the empty bench series, filled with all the poignancy that is the point of this theme.

I respect your opinion, but it's not just about emotions.
I think you're on the wrong track.
It's like eating at McDonald's with your family or eating at a good restaurant.
Emotionally, both are good, but very different.
You're just serving us McDonald's.

+1 to that ...

Ted, don't worry about me.
I am modest enough about my own cooking abilities and always value the culinary opinion of a 3 Michelin-star chef.

Thanks minniev and Mike. Yes you are correct Mike - it's a juvenile and I'm guessing less than a year. It's one of two families in the area - one with one chick, the other with two. There is a third pair but I haven't seen any chicks with them - or they may just be odd ones that didn't bread.

Long shot but I too had that for a while ... my editor, the GIMP, was posting images in Linear mode without gamma, which makes them look dark especially in the shadows. So here's how your posted image looks with gamma applied:

I simulated 2.2 gamma in Curves so it is not perfect but it is good enough for the purpose of illustration, I reckon.

May be a red herring but, in the XMP metadata of your post, the tag ToneCurveName 2012 states "Linear" ... not being an Adobe user, I have no idea what that signifies.

Another variable is the Black Point, however your stuff sets it ...

Many thanks xpatUSA. Your edit is very close to what I expected from the post, a touch lighter but considerably better than is showing on the small size on the site. Definitely good enough for purposes of illustration. As you have adjusted it I'm also quite happy with the bright area top right whereas I was wincing because of the more extreme contrast as seen on my original post drew too much attention that way.
I'm an Adobe user but I have no idea what your quote from the exif means either.
A question folks. If you look at my original at large size, does it look as dark as the smaller shot?

To be honest, I would have expected such a result from this photo:

I'm not sure what you are getting at here Kumsal. Your edit is considerably darker than my original post. I quite like B&W treatment and the crop but I prefer my original crop. To me. the extra foliage around the frame gives a feeling of place. Then I think a viewer will find the figure via the lines and bright far rectangle. The reason I like the original is because here, to me, the subject becomes a discovery.

The question is whether the overexposed foliage in the upper area contributes anything.
You actually have a photo that doesn't really draw attention in terms of colors.
But it's your decision.

That was not the question.

Mike asked: A question folks. If you look at my original at large size, does it look as dark as the smaller shot?

In the iguana's eye

Far out! Awesome reflection...

So, you speak on behalf of Mike.
Why do you have this urge?
Mike can answer me himself!

I don't know, it could be a very good photo.
But what is reflected in the eye has nothing to do with reality.
At least in these lighting conditions.
Sorry.