Canadian sunset

[Ronnoco]

I think this is ok, as far as sunset pictures go, but I do agree with Seb about the shadow/black areas looking a bit washed out. I noticed it also on the gallery image.
Yes, we all will see things differently on different monitors, whether calibrated or not.
Perhaps a good way to see that there are no true blacks in this image would be to look at the levels indicator. As one can see by the Black slider on the left of the chart, the image graph does not come close to meeting it, indicating there are no true blacks in this image.
If thats fine with you, then thats ok. There is no "rule" stating that an image must have true blacks or whites in it, but some, including myself, would just like to point out to you that we feel it could be improved by deepening the dark areas some more. There is no reason to lash out against other members who take the time to offer their critique when you have asked for it.

Thanks for giving me an idea. I checked out the histogram and info. directly on the camera for that image. The black areas were highlighted on the screen indicating no visual information... therefore true black. The histogram indicated underexposure with low levels. I indicated back aways that I saw the image both on my machine and on the site as being perhaps too dark.

Ronnoco

[livin4lax09]

Well, the original is definitely NOT washed out, so I have to wonder about the equipment you are using to view it.

Ronnoco

viewing it on a calibrated apple monitor just like you, seeing as I've only used macs all my life...

[Seb]

Thanks for giving me an idea. I checked out the histogram and info. directly on the camera for that image. The black areas were highlighted on the screen indicating no visual information... therefore true black. The histogram indicated underexposure with low levels. I indicated back aways that I saw the image both on my machine and on the site as being perhaps too dark.

Ronnoco

Ron, I don't know what happened between the moment when you actually looked at the histogram on your camera and the moment when you posted the picture on the critique board but here is what I get when I look at the levels of your picture. Simply put, this explain what people are seeing here. Seeking for true blacks....

Seb

[Overbeyond]

In my opinion, plain ordinary sunsets are two a penny but good ones are rare enough. This one is nice(ish) but uninteresting and sits comfortably in the former catagory and I feel perfect blacks or whatever will not lift it out of there.

[Ronnoco]

Ron, I don't know what happened between the moment when you actually looked at the histogram on your camera and the moment when you posted the picture on the critique board but here is what I get when I look at the levels of your picture. Simply put, this explain what people are seeing here. Seeking for true blacks....

Seb

A few observations. Your histogram shows lack of true black but your image certainly does not confirm this on my monitor. I messed around with a variety of software and discovered that in saving it to jpeg. to upload to the site, the histogram may have been compressed on some monitors, since the camera histogram goes right to the edge of the black area and yours does not. The luminance histogram on my computer goes right to the black edge as well after downloading from my camera.

In terms of systems, a lot of you guys are using MACS. My computer recently melted down: as in the power supply blew out both the computer and other items.

I am now using a new Media Centre PC which senses my monitor: make and model and sets up an automatic built-in profile. It matches what I see in the camera LCD.

It printed out to 16 by 20 and I sold it to a resort in the area, today for their lounge area. The blacks were black and there was no washout, pixelation or artifacts. (GB, I did incorporate your crop and suggestions, thank you.) What else can I say!

Ronnoco

[Seb]

A few observations. Your histogram shows lack of true black but your image certainly does not confirm this on my monitor. I messed around with a variety of software and discovered that in saving it to jpeg. to upload to the site, the histogram may have been compressed on some monitors, since the camera histogram goes right to the edge of the black area and yours does not. The luminance histogram on my computer goes right to the black edge as well after downloading from my camera.

In terms of systems, a lot of you guys are using MACS. My computer recently melted down: as in the power supply blew out both the computer and other items.

I am now using a new Media Centre PC which senses my monitor: make and model and sets up an automatic built-in profile. It matches what I see in the camera LCD.

It printed out to 16 by 20 and I sold it to a resort in the area, today for their lounge area. The blacks were black and there was no washout, pixelation or artifacts. (GB, I did incorporate your crop and suggestions, thank you.) What else can I say!

Ronnoco

Ron, while I find the situation unusual, I guess that perhaps some compression methods for web displaying may actually deteriorate the image to the point that contrast and luminance are affected. Or it may have something to do with this board itself. For instance, I can tell you that images that I will post here won't look exactly the same that when they are viewed on my website (and these are the very same files saved with an srgb color profile).

Back to your image, Gary who's on a PC appears to get the very same histogram than I according to what he's showing earlier in this thread.

Either way, good for you if the image sells.

Seb

[GB1]

It printed out to 16 by 20 and I sold it to a resort in the area, today for their lounge area. The blacks were black and there was no washout, pixelation or artifacts. (GB, I did incorporate your crop and suggestions, thank you.) What else can I say!

Ronnoco

I think this goes to show that there's a difference between what photo geeks like us and normal people who have lives look for in a photo! ihih: ut Most folks appreciate a pretty sunset with nice colors, but photographers look at soooo many shots, sooooo many sunsets, we lose appreciation of them. We want them to be absolutely perfect, and somehow different too.

Is anyone else surprised at what photos take the top awards at photo contests!? The off-the-wall stuff. Guess who's judging them?

[EOSThree]

This sunset is OK, I've seen worse, I've seen better, it's OK. IMO it's the best landscape you've posted here. I don't see the artifacts, and I usually won't comment on that in a photo posted here because of the limitations of this site. However, on my monitor also, the photo shows no real blacks. I look at Dwaugh's sunrise photo and see true blacks in the tree. So even though my Monitor's uncalibrated(I have used Norman Koren's charts to set my black level and gamma)I can see true blacks in Dwaugh's photo and not in yours, and checking the histogram on each photo bears this out, and with your photo, I get the identical histogram Seb and Gahspidy do.
Your abrasive, acerbic critique lacking in constructive suggestion of some photos posted here isn't necessary. Critique is necessary, but should be done in a positive way. On top of your overzealous negative critiques, your gallery does little to support your expertise in making these harsh criticisms. People are lying in wait for you post anything on this site and jump all over it when they get the chance. Some of the critique is merited, and some is payback. In this case we have 3 histograms that support the fact that this photo as posted has no real blacks in it, yet you continue to deny this is what people might be seeing. I know if it were me in your shoes, I would be checking to see if everything was still in calibration, and maybe I'd be having a long look in the mirror.

[milhouse]

Well, the original is definitely NOT washed out, so I have to wonder about the equipment you are using to view it.

I’m seeing the same thing everyone else is and I run a pretty high end screen with color management. But I would like to add that whenever someone makes a comment like something looks too dark or too light or too green, for the most part it doesn’t really matter if their monitor is calibrated or not because the colors and true blacks they see on their screen are what they at least perceive to be correct. So when the blacks (or lack of) in your photo are lighter then what is normally black to them, then its true calibrated or not.

I think if the lake was not frozen over or if the ice wasn’t so rough and choppy it would look better. I would defiantly say the sky was intense, but the only really interesting part is the very center of the glow from the sun.

[trog100]

washed out..



not so washed but the darker detail is going..



take your pic the first is a small crop from the original.. the second from the tweaked original to look better (overall) on my monitor..

and both crops look way darker against the white forum background than they do against the darker background of my monitor even to the point the first crop dosnt look so washed out as the original does seen full screen..

trog

[shutterman]

wash out or not, true black or not, is not a concern to me b/c it has been highlighted by so many and Ron thinks its ok and if not is easily fixed in PS.

from a comp perspective, I think the immediate foreground is too dark and uninteresting and takes away from the beautiful colors in shy.

cropping up to the island might help.

thanks,
Wes

[trog100]

i think u are right its the wishy washy detail in the forground land that is the problem.. i kinda added emphasis to the sky and silhouetted (darkened) the land..

its not visuable in the crop but that was the overall effect.. bring out the beauty of the sky and lose the cr-p land.. i worked on the principle that to print large size the crop couldnt really be done.. for a web image perhaps..

trog

[Ronnoco]

washed out..



not so washed but the darker detail is going..



take your pic the first is a small crop from the original.. the second from the tweaked original to look better (overall) on my monitor..

and both crops look way darker against the white forum background than they do against the darker background of my monitor even to the point the first crop dosnt look so washed out as the original does seen full screen..

trog

The difference I see between these two is that there is more contrast in the second than there is in the first and both look quite dark.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

wash out or not, true black or not, is not a concern to me b/c it has been highlighted by so many and Ron thinks its ok and if not is easily fixed in PS.

from a comp perspective, I think the immediate foreground is too dark and uninteresting and takes away from the beautiful colors in shy.

cropping up to the island might help.

thanks,
Wes

Wes, wash out is NOT there and the histogram is right to the black edge both on my camera and in the luminance histogram on my computer. It printed out exactly according to the histogram with jet blacks. The histogram and the EXIF indicate underexposure by more than one stop, so 'washout' is totally illogical. Correcting what is not there either in the image or in the histogram is impossible.

From a composition perspective the immediate foreground provides depth to the image. It is dark because it is sunset. The sky colours would not be the same colour and richness, if the foreground were lighter. GB made a good suggestion about cropping the foreground but keeping it in the image and that works.

What I see as weaknesses no one mentioned, despite some more personally inappropriate remarks by a few viewers, but then I have been involved in photos, graphics and video for a very long time.

Ronnoco

[mdmc]

Wes, wash out is NOT there and the histogram is right to the black edge both on my camera and in the luminance histogram on my computer. It printed out exactly according to the histogram with jet blacks. The histogram and the EXIF indicate underexposure by more than one stop, so 'washout' is totally illogical. Correcting what is not there either in the image or in the histogram is impossible.

From a composition perspective the immediate foreground provides depth to the image. It is dark because it is sunset. The sky colours would not be the same colour and richness, if the foreground were lighter. GB made a good suggestion about cropping the foreground but keeping it in the image and that works.

What I see as weaknesses no one mentioned, despite some more personally inappropriate remarks by a few viewers, but then I have been involved in photos, graphics and video for a very long time.

Ronnoco

I thought these people were screwing with you since you cut other peoples work to shreds and claim such expertise.
However I downloaded the image and opened it in pse2, hit auto contrast and that was a nice improvement. I also took a snap of the histogram and it agrees with Seb and Gary's posted illustrations.
My personal take is that I like it. The fg detail is too far away or jst not sharp enough and the water is not too pleasing.
The people here are really trying to point out actual flaws in the image and help you to become better, but you aren't listening.
Mark.

[yogestee]

Ronnoco,,,,I have been watching this tread these last few days..I have had a good look at this image on my home monitor 19" LCD,,my monitor at work a 21" LCD which is calibrated 3 or 4 times a year by our IT guys and on my laptop and I can definitely say there are no blacks in this image..
Also I have shown this image to a few of the other photographers at work and we all came to the same conclusion,,,NO BLACKS!!!

Jurgen