The Value of Photo.net

I recently posted of photo of a statue of Sabu Shake on Fisherman's Wharf in the Fixed Focal Length Friday forum. After seeing on the Internet via P/N, I decided I really do hate everything about this photo and deleted it from everywhere I could. I couldn't get more light on the face without blowing out the highlights. P/N is like the final test and the photo failed in about every way. And, besides, Sabu ain't going anywhere, I'll have more chances to get it right or at least better. BTW, the P/N bright white background makes some photos appear too dark.

The white background for forum photos is unfortunate. There have been many complaints about it over the years. That white background is often the cause of shadowed areas with detail disappearing into blackness. Of course, a more neutral background would be more universally effective, though I doubt with near certainty anything like that is in the cards. While white may be a good choice for matting prints, it’s reflective intrusion on a monitor or screen is often overwhelming.

 

I never judge my photos by how they look on PN. I assess them based on what they look like in Photoshop on a background of my choosing.

By the way, for PN, I will often look at a sized jpg on a white background on my monitor and will adjust that small jpg for it to look as good as possible on PN, sometimes bringing out shadow detail a little more than I would for making a print. That still leaves some chance for compression artifacting when PN gets its hands on it and some color shifts, especially with toning or duotoning. I figure I do the best I can these days where I can never be sure what other people are seeing on there various monitors in varying states of calibration. The mystery/mystique of digital viewing!

Agree with the white background, it would be peachy if it could be user determined: alas.

 

I agree with samstevens in so far as one can never be sure of how others' calibrate their monitor on their cell phone or i-pad when they view my images, that applies to an image presented on the www.

 

To some extent one can neutralize the effect of the white background by using border/frame around the images posted on Photo.net, but beware that Ludmilla's doesn't like such an antiquated presentation approach: I still persist with doing that - not to annoy Ludmilla, only simply as an attempt to present excellent images in the best light possible.

 

Hope all you USA chaps and chapettes had a very safe and fun Thanksgiving.

 

WW

Many time I edit a photo in Photoshop and then post and look at it in PN, then quickly delete it because it does not look quite right as posted. So, one more editing iteration before it looks better in PN on my monitor. I own two desktop computers, two laptops, and an iPad. Occasionally, I look at my PN posted photos on the other machines for comparison. If I get a photo to look good on my main editing computer, which has a calibrated monitor, it usually looks decent on the others, although I can often see subtle color and brightness shifts.

In Photoshop and in many other image editors you can test how the image looks when presented with white, different gray, and black backgrounds. Then you can make final adjustments depending on the presentation platform.

I don't worry much about other people's monitors. I edit my photos on what I think is a fairly accurate monitor, under what are probably typical lighting conditions. The brain is very accommodating and whatever people are used to is their "normal". If they thought there was an overall color cast or contrast problem, they'd probably adjust for it. My guess is many people do have those problems, but don't realize it, nor does it matter.

Most galleries have white walls: a point worth mentioning. A good photo should look good with any neutral tone: white, gray, or black.

Gallery presentation offers much more than a 2d bright white backlit surface... framing, mattes, lighting, shadows, physicality... it matters.

A good photo should look good with any neutral tone

A good photo may well look good with several different backgrounds. And a good photographer or curator will maximize the effect of a photo with the best background they can utilize.

Nothing to stop people framing their pics with "digital frames". Some do it already here and elsewhere.

Nothing to stop people framing their pics with "digital frames". Some do it already here and elsewhere.

Yes, they can and do, as William pointed out above. With the overpowering reflectivity of the white background that frame still sits on, the picture itself is still often negatively impacted.

 

On occasion, I’ve filled the surrounding space within the post box with a more neutral color and made my image smaller within that space to alleviate the white glare. When I’ve done that as a workaround, I wished PN offered me an easier method. I knew, though, how unsightly it would be if everyone chose different backgrounds within a thread, which leads me, as if in a cosmic circle, back to the original simple point. I wish PN would provide a universally neutral background which would work well for what I suspect would be a majority of photos.

Why settle for boring black or white?:confused:

 

Some people even add 'frames' to enhance their images ;)

The primrose path to glory

Edited December 1, 2020 by JDMvW

".....maximize the effect of a photo with the best background they can utilize."

 

If the area surrounding an image is white your iris will dial down to accommodate the excess light.... the image becomes darker, often obscuring darker details. If the surrounding area is dark your iris will open up .... the image becomes brighter ...

Galleries that use white mats usually indirectly spotlight the photo.

It would be a brave gallery to have black or gray walls, although I have seen some and a few with off white or beige walls. Most photos have a white matte not a black one. It may just be convention, but most people are used to it. If a white wall overpowers dark details then dark walls overpower highlights. A good picture will look good with either. How could one have different backgrounds for different posters in a forum? I think that would be very distracting, even if possible. PN could go white text on black which would allow a black background (as in the portfolios), but white text is quite unusual, but not impossible. There is no right here. In general galleries quite carefully light their pics using spots which makes them look better than most of us manage in our homes.

How could one have different backgrounds for different posters in a forum? I think that would be very distracting, even if possible.

Yes. That's exactly what was said above, reproduced here ...

I knew, though, how unsightly it would be if everyone chose different backgrounds within a thread, which leads me, as if in a cosmic circle, back to the original simple point. I wish PN would provide a universally neutral background which would work well for what I suspect would be a majority of photos.

It would be a brave gallery to have black or gray walls

We're not talking about galleries. We're talking about images on a monitor which, unlike galleries, are BACK LIT, where a bright white background has a much different and greater effect than a white wall would, unless maybe you coated it with high gloss paint and blared hot lights directly at the walls instead of the prints, not done by most galleries. Speaking of wall colors and bravery, I have a room in my gallery painted red for a specific part of the show, not because of bravery or because the photos wouldn't look good on white or off white walls but because I wanted the dramatic effect of the red to be part of the presentation and experience, and I think it breathes well with the content and style of the more theatrical photos in that room. It's not always about photos looking "good" or "not good." It's about their expressing what the photographer wants or the curator thinks it can. Every photo has to be presented some way, and presentation affects the experience of any photo.