Canadian sunset

[Ronnoco]

This is as shot with no filters and no colour enhancements in postprocessing. The lake is partially covered with ice and there is floating ice as well in various areas.

Comments. (Still need to find the question mark on this new multilingual keyboard!)

Ronnoco

[readingr]

Ron,

I like the composition of the foreground, island, and the land on the horizon lead the eyes into the picture.

Just a couple of minor things the colour of the sky looks unbelievably red and the yellow looks unreal. The second thing is, there is a hint of detail in the foreground but either too much or not enough, I can't decide, it falls in between the two for me. (by the way just calibrated the monitor this morning using a Gretag Macbeth eye one)

Flying into Montreal to go skiing in Mont Tremblant in February - can't wait if you have sky's like this.

Roger

[Ronnoco]

Ron,
Just a couple of minor things the colour of the sky looks unbelievably red and the yellow looks unreal.

Flying into Montreal to go skiing in Mont Tremblant in February - can't wait if you have sky's like this.

Roger

The yellow was where the sun was located before it dipped below the horizon. The colours changed as the sun went down and I have a few that are even redder which were taken later.

I have waterskied in the Mont Tremblant area in the summer but it is excellent for snow skiing too. Yes, the sunsets in the lake areas around Mont Tremblant should be excellent as well.

Ron

[Seb]

This is as shot with no filters and no colour enhancements in postprocessing. The lake is partially covered with ice and there is floating ice as well in various areas.

Comments. (Still need to find the question mark on this new multilingual keyboard!)

Ronnoco

This looks like a very conventional sunset to me. The end result is decent but the shadows are slightly washed out and I can see compression artefacts in them. A slight level adjustment to turn them solid black would enhance the visual impact of the image.

Seb

[trog100]

the image would no doubt look much better seen at a larger size..

i dont think it can be failry judged as we are looking at it.. the downsizing and method of presentation dosnt do it justice..

it would probably look very nice framed and hanging on a wall.. ??

the mere fact of downsizing just kills some images stone dead for me.. its lost its magic simply by being downsized..

the detail is lost.. the impact is lost.. i can guess at what it should look like presented properly but thats about all..

i guess it would look very nice..

trog

[schrackman]

Ronocco,

Cloud pattern is bland, colors predictable, foreground grass distracting (as is the island in the center of image), and had you not mentioned there was ice on this lake I would have just guessed the water was really choppy that evening, which by the way is not a very pleasant element for a lanscape portrait. Compositionally, this photo could use a small crop at the top. You yourself once remarked on how sunset photos are a dime a dozen, that very few stand out from the rest. In keeping with that, this photo is at best snapshotish. You would have fared better shooting this in early morning light to capture a beautiful wintery scene of ice on a lake. A little fog or steam rising up wouldn't have hurt either. Is this close enough to you that you could return and try a sunrise shot?

[CLKunst]

Well that's a red sunset. I'm not wild about the grey throughout though, it feels oddly washed out in contrast with the vividness of the sky. I think you would get more bang for your buck by letting those shadow details turn to silhouettes. Too bad you couldn't have a slightly higher vantage to really translate any reflection from such colors on the surface.

Also:
Is this the sunset picture from last Thursday which you referred to in the Mendecino Sunset Post? Just curious.

[Ronnoco]

This looks like a very conventional sunset to me. The end result is decent but the shadows are slightly washed out and I can see compression artefacts in them. A slight level adjustment to turn them solid black would enhance the visual impact of the image.

Seb

The shadows are definitely NOT at all washed out. On the camera LED, they are deep and solid black. They transfered to the computer monitor and the web site with the same deep and solid black colour. My synchmaster CRT handles colour extremely well, better than most LCDs I have seen and is calibrated.

I believe my gallery has the uncompressed version.

BTW, it is not at all conventional, based on the sunsets that I have seen in this forum.

Ronnoco

[mpreece]

I like it, the only thing I would do is print it and hang it on a wall. Good Capture!

[Ronnoco]

Well that's a red sunset. I'm not wild about the grey throughout though, it feels oddly washed out in contrast with the vividness of the sky. I think you would get more bang for your buck by letting those shadow details turn to silhouettes. Too bad you couldn't have a slightly higher vantage to really translate any reflection from such colors on the surface.

Also:
Is this the sunset picture from last Thursday which you referred to in the Mendecino Sunset Post? Just curious.

Ah, what grey throughout! There is some dark grey in some of the clouds which is natural and a relief from the orange but that is it. It is definitely NOT by any stretch of the imagination even slightly washed out either in the original or in the uploaded photo. Your monitor is NOT adjusted correctly.

If anything it is darker than what it should be with the blacks being too dark.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

Ronocco,

Cloud pattern is bland, colors predictable, foreground grass distracting (as is the island in the center of image), and had you not mentioned there was ice on this lake I would have just guessed the water was really choppy that evening, which by the way is not a very pleasant element for a lanscape portrait. Compositionally, this photo could use a small crop at the top. You yourself once remarked on how sunset photos are a dime a dozen, that very few stand out from the rest. In keeping with that, this photo is at best snapshotish. You would have fared better shooting this in early morning light to capture a beautiful wintery scene of ice on a lake. A little fog or steam rising up wouldn't have hurt either. Is this close enough to you that you could return and try a sunrise shot?

Having looked at the snapshots in your gallery, I find your comments about bland, predictable colour etc. to be not very serious.

Ronnoco

[CLKunst]

I looked at your gallery version and it does look somewhat darker, so the lighter grey-ness in the shadows must be from web compression. Unfortunately for the larger image it has artifacts and halos throughout. You might want to rethink the way you are compressing your images to keep distortion distractions to a minimum as they are also visible in your smaller posted copy.

Do you shoot RAW? And, is this the sunset you mentioned in your earlier critique of websailor's image? Again, just curious.

[Ronnoco]

[QUOTE=CLKunst]I looked at your gallery version and it does look somewhat darker, so the lighter grey-ness in the shadows must be from web compression. Unfortunately for the larger image it has artifacts and halos throughout. You might want to rethink the way you are compressing your images to keep distortion distractions to a minimum as they are also visible in your smaller posted copy.QUOTE]

Well, I took the larger image from the gallery and enlarged it to a level that I had to scroll through it on a 19 inch monitor. No sign whatsoever of "artifacts and halos throughout" and I have an extremely good eye for detail.

The smaller image being extremely compressed does break up into stair stepping at large magnification but no distortion or artifacts were seen in this image either.

Ronnoco

[GB1]

Ronnoco - I think it's got some really nice color. The composition is stlightly bothersome however... I do like the foreground area, which along with the middle island seems to give the photo not two but three planes. But somehow the shape of the foreground is just a little less than ideal.. perhaps because it stops there on the left. Also, the foliage that is sticking up on the foreground blocks the scene.

Because I think you wont mind, I've attached a crop. Looks a little different - not necessarily "better" but just different. I sort of prefer a wider crop here too.

GB

[schrackman]

Having looked at the snapshots in your gallery, I find your comments about bland, predictable colour etc. to be not very serious.

Ronnoco

I don't recall where I asked for your critique of my gallery photos. But you did post a photo here on critique forum, and that is precisely what you got from everyone who responsed. But apparently you're not as capable of receiving it as you are dishing it out to the others here on this forum.

Sorry bud, but the photo is mediocre at best. You could have done several things to improve it. But if that's not what you like to hear, then perhaps this isn't the right place for you to post photos.

[mtbbrian]

Let's keep this on topic and your comments constructive.
I need a new mop to clean the floors here, and I don't think Gary has gotten one yet..
Thanks!
Brian

[Seb]

The shadows are definitely NOT at all washed out. On the camera LED, they are deep and solid black. They transfered to the computer monitor and the web site with the same deep and solid black colour. My synchmaster CRT handles colour extremely well, better than most LCDs I have seen and is calibrated.

I believe my gallery has the uncompressed version.

BTW, it is not at all conventional, based on the sunsets that I have seen in this forum.

Ronnoco

Well if it looks fine on your screen and that it translates in an equally fine print then good for you but I see issues on my hardware calibrated Apple display and I am apparently not the only one to see these things according to others comments. You might want to go on dpreview to give a look at their greyscale chart to check out to which extent you can make out the difference between the blocks. This would be a valuable verification given that you tend to see things quite differently than most people here.

Also, I notice that the version of this picture displayed in your gallery features branches sticking out at the top of the frame. Admittedly, sunsets displayed here doesn't tend to have that...

Seb

[trog100]

it seems we all see different things on our different monitors..

i just downloaded the original.. the first thing i see is too much noise in the sky.. and it does look washed out.. the ground more than anything else..

denoised and with a clarify plus contrast enhance and darkened slightly it now look okays to print by my standards.. minus the twigs in the top of course..

but i still think my slightly tweaked version would look nice hanging on a wall..

pretty much as i "imagined" it would..

trog

ps.. i have now deleted the image so as not to offend..

[starriderrick]

Ronnoco,
Great location. Stunning moment.Quite impressive.

trog, I missed your version.

GB1 nailed it in my opinion. :thumbsup: Wide.

I'm here to learn.
Rick

[schrackman]

Well, I have an Apple display too and I took a look at the gallery file, but I don't see washed out shadows as Seb sees them. But on the same token I always apply a slight levels adjustment to all my photos and see no reason why this photo couldn't benefit from it either. The colors are actually a lot more vivid than the image posted above and the noise is acceptable. I'm sure it wouldn't be noticeable on a print. I still have a problem with the foreground and island as distracting, though, and would like to have seen a more dramatic cloud pattern or even a beam of light to help it stand apart from other ordinary sunsets. And I still think this would make for an excellent site for a sunrise photo with all that ice on the lake.

[trog100]

yes the noise could be considered acceptable.. but noise is easy to get rid of so why not as part of the tweak.. i dont like to see any noise if it can be removed..

to use a sound analogy shots like that suffer from poor a "signal to noise" ratio.. the ever present digital noise tends to creep in simply because there isnt enough "signal" strength to blow it away..

i also know my monitor tends to lighten up the shadows more than some.. no two monitors look exactly the same calibrated or not..

i dont think any two people would tweak that image exactly the same either.. the desired end product from any two people would differ quite a lot i think.. i think GB1s crop looks better.. but only cos i prefer widesceen images to square ones.. which kinda brings home how silly it can all get.. he he

trog

[gahspidy]

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.

[livin4lax09]

can we start implementing tags on threads like these? such as [PRAISE ONLY]. if you can't handle criticism, keep your images to yourself.


As for my opinion, I agree with the washed out look, and it lacking any real subject. like someone else said, it's a typical sunset shot, and just because it doesnt exclusively mimic those seen on this forum, doesn't mean it's not typical.

[Ronnoco]

Ronnoco - I think it's got some really nice color. The composition is stlightly bothersome however... I do like the foreground area, which along with the middle island seems to give the photo not two but three planes. But somehow the shape of the foreground is just a little less than ideal.. perhaps because it stops there on the left. Also, the foliage that is sticking up on the foreground blocks the scene.

Because I think you wont mind, I've attached a crop. Looks a little different - not necessarily "better" but just different. I sort of prefer a wider crop here too.

GB

I certainly don't mind, and as a crop that works, as well as your suggestions. I was considering the foliage problem anyway so that needs to go too.

Thanks for your crop and suggestions.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

can we start implementing tags on threads like these? such as [PRAISE ONLY]. if you can't handle criticism, keep your images to yourself. .

Intelligent criticism is much easier to handle than unnecessary comments such as the above. Brent, "artifacts and halos" that I do not see on either a desktop or a laptop are impossible to remedy and suggest that they may exist only on the display of a few monitors, which is irrelevant for printing purposes. If you can't understand the technology, Brent, keep your lack of experience to yourself.

As for my opinion, I agree with the washed out look, and it lacking any real subject. like someone else said, it's a typical sunset shot, and just because it doesnt exclusively mimic those seen on this forum, doesn't mean it's not typical.[/QUOTE]

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

Ronnoco