Under the Veterans Memorial Bridge, Cleveland at Night

I experimented with a 3-step repetitive sharpening and downsizing

procedure with this photograph. Your comments, suggestions for

improvement, and ratings are invited.

if you have the time. Regards.

I love the colors, and it appears to be tack sharp. The only thing that might have been nice was a little light on the foreground post 'n rope (lower right) leading you into the scene. Might have been able to paint the light with a small flashlight / penlight during the exposure. But this is a small point, for I really enjoy the image.

Good point Christopher. Or perhaps a some fill flash at reduced power. Thank you for the visit. Regards.

Wonderful colours

Hi Walter... Good exposure here. Impressed at how the blue shows so well and under bridge structure. Find contrast way too high and lowered 20 points that lead up walk lights up more, and detail seems better. Night is fun but difficult. Nice clarity. Anyway see what u think...took off slight cast too.

One of the cleanest looking shots I've seen--very professional. The blue bridge stands out as larger than life--dramatic. It looks like there's just one tiny bit of flare over by the left lamppost under the bridge--should be easy to repair. Other than that I wouldn't change a thing.

Paul, thanks for the obsvervations and the attachment. I am going to disagree with you, however, about the contrast level. I downloaded your version and examined it in Photoshop. What I found was that there were no true blacks in that version. For example, the black border is, by design, almost true black (2R 2B 2G) but it turns out to be 33R 33B 33G in your attachment. In the histogram, the lower quarter (dark tones) is empty. While I am not saying that my posted version is optimum, I think it is closer to what I want than the attachment. Is it possible that we have a difference in calibration in our monitors? I am running at a gamma of 2.2 and color temp of D65.

David, I saw the flare but was too lazy to do anything about it. It is gone now. I also brightened the spotlights under the bridge a little. Thanks.

Regards to all.

Walter, not sure on that. I have a nec xp17 which is an older cad monitor set on accucolour preset of the same k so dunno. Seems contrast shouldn't change the basic colour only the intensity? or harshness?

Hi Paul. The XP17 is a good monitor. I have the XP21 and I have been very happy with it over the years; but it is showing its age. I calibrate with the Gretag-Macbeth EyeOne Display colorimeter. This produces a very accurate calibration and profile, far better than the presets of the monitor. I took a look at your version today at work on a couple of other monitors. I came up with the same conclusion as I did at home. I still appreciate your input. Regards.

By the way, I think I am going to be replacing my XP21 with the Lacie Electron Blue 22. Any thoughts?

Walter, a very fine shot! The colours all work well and the two bridges compose themselves beautifully. I'm not sure about raising the levels for the lower right handrail as I think the composition would become a bit complicated and some difficult-to-see bits make for added interest. As to the contrast it is in the end a matter of taste but given the 6x7 trannie size you could make a sizeable poster-size print from this where I think your original colours would be better. 7/6 from a former bridge engineer.

Walter no idea on current monitors but only know the xp cost 3x what the consumer one did so its usually the most bucks wins, with something like a nec anyway.

 

Collin may have a point about not wanting that lit up anyway... after all the shot is about the bridge. I just tend, personally to use very little contrast as i find it kills detail, produces eye candy but with high end cameras no candy is needed. I would be curious about my own night shots as seen from your pov on level adjusts though. Nobody has complained so far about not enough c... thanks.

Walter, your version is ok on my Dell P1110 (Sony) and the cheap HP MX70. For web use, calibration is not the issue. I believe 99% of the monitors use presets including myself. I always use LCD as the reference. On my Acer and Dell (LCD from Samsung) laptop, the image looks almost the same as the P1110. Here is the review that I found for the Lacie monitor.

http://www.pricegrabber.com/rating_getprodrev.php/masterid=670604/id_type=masterid

Walt, this is a beautiful picture, with detail underneath the main span, where I wouldn't expect to find any.

 

And also, your comments in the POW reveal you to be a comic genius! Thanks for the laughs!

Thank you Doug, but that particular POW, as I am certain that you know, was nothing to laugh about. It was a true disgrace. The humourous avenue that I chose to take was the antithesis of what I felt. It marks a turning point for how I will view this site (and its "heroes") from now on. Regards.

yup, I remember coming to that same realization, myself. It's a fallen world, and Photonet is not exempt.

 

I had a similar experience when I realized I was the product of my parent's lovemaking. Some things you just want to enjoy, without thinking too much of the background. Lucky for me, the photonet epiphany preceded the parental one, and so I was prepared.

care to join me? Regards.

oooo, it's tempting, but No, thanks.

 

I fought my fight with Photonet in the spring and summer of 2003 and learned that I was a small fish in a big pond. The powers-that-be have a criteria for change which is unpublished, and not logically deduced. In other words, they make their own decisions and boycotts by the membership, no matter who the participants, have little to no effect.

 

The thing is, photonet doesn't need us, you and me. There are just far too many members for it to notice the likes of us, no matter how good we are. For example, at the moment, there are 1999 photographers behind the number one TRP spot. Knocking off the first one will simply move everyone a notch up the ladder.

 

I admire your principles, but in the end, I fear you will lose the most. Around here, it's best to roll with it. And carrly lots of salt.

Agreed, but it is a matter of principle for me. I do not expect to see any change, and it is obvious that even though I and many others have tried, Mottershead refuses to listen. Incredibly, he seems to favor those who cheat and abuse the system. It was not always like this here; something has changed, radically, for the worse. The final result, I realize, will be that I will have paid for three years of "sponorship" and not post anymore photographs (on this site). But, as I said, it is a matter of principle. Doug, thanks for your visit and concern. Best Regards.

Walter, I am afraid I don't fully understand what you are talking about. I take it there has been some manipulation of the POW, but I have not followed this closely inasmuch as POWs mean nothing to me. The strengths of the forum are the postings and the critiques (not the ratings). Are you suggesting this is also broken? Bob

Bob, my decision is based on a continuing and growing problem in the Gallery that the PhotoNet administration, specifically Brian Mottershead, refuses to directly address. It is not a new problem but has existed for quite some time. Last week's POW (which can be seen here) was just the finishing touch for me.

Basically, there is a small coterie of mostly non-paying members who control the Gallery by flooding it with uploaded photographs while simultaneously contacting one another with the expectation of reciprocal 7/7 ratings. None of these uploaded photographs have Requests for Critique on them, at least not initially. Indeed, a critique is farthest from the mind of this group. An RFC would mean that the photograph would be placed into the Critique queue and be subject to worldwide visibility and ratings. By not submitting to an RFC, they bypass the honest ratings sufficiently long enough to propel the said photograph to the top of the TRP. This, of course, is at the expense of other members who are not cheating the system.

As I said, this is a long festering problem with the Gallery. Now, regarding that POW, the photographer known as tamtam is actually Ahmet Ozkan, who has been previously banned from PhotoNet for several nefarious misdeeds. These included creating bogus accounts under various identities with the purpose to low-ball and trash other unsuspecting members whom he felt were in competition with himself. He would also use the bogus accounts to slap 7/7 ratings on his own photographs. This miscreant is also part of that above mentioned group.

This information was made known to the PhotoNet administration by at least two long-standing paying members. The initial response from the moderators was, understandably, cautious but seemed promising. A long thread ensued in the Feedback Forum concerning this obvious chicanery. I and others joined in to voice our objections to this photograph being made a POW. Somewhere along the line the moderators' stance took an about face and they became hostile to our position. Undoubtedly this was due to "orders from above".

The entire thread in the Feedback Forum was deleted. I and other members were banned from posting anymore comments in that forum. Comments that were critical of tamtam and his photograph on the POW thread were similarly expunged.

My own comments were quite caustic; perhaps I earned the restraining order. But Bob, if you followed along with what has transpired in the Gallery over the past year I think you would be a bit caustic as well. And beyond that, the administration turns a deaf ear and blind eye to this festering splinter.

In the final analysis, it is a problem that denies the fair use of the Gallery to many honest members. My own photographs almost invariably get a lot of ratings and a ton of comments. I do not have a real visibility problem. But many other members do! That is who this group of abusers is hurting. It is the person who comes to this site thinking that he or she will be able to post and learn, only to realize that none of their photographs get rated, none are commented on, and all of them sink into oblivion. It is not fair to them. I hope this illustrates my position to boycott. Regards.

Walter, thanks for the very clear explanation of how the system has been corrupted. Now I understand your reaction. However, please do consider the part of photonet that does work well, and that is the posting of photographs for the purpose of critiquing. I learn from looking at others and reading comments, and I certainly benefit from the comments I receive. Best, Bob.

Robert's right. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, or, Don't sue for divorce because your spouse's underarms stink when the rest is ok.

Well, that is sage advice Doug. Regards.

Hi Walter, A beautiful bridge with interesting colors and composition, nicely done!