'Geysers and Late Afternoon Storm Clouds, Yellowstone' [Color Ed.]

A small megapixel camera, and ISO pushed pushed to the max,

yielded interesting effects bordering almost on pointillism in this

scene toward the Firehole River Geysers and surrounding

mountains, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, one very late

summer afternoon. Your ratings, critiques and observations are

invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly, very critically, or

wish to make a remark, please submit a helpful and

constructive comment; please share your photographic

knowledge to help improve my photography. (Please keep in

mind the limitations of the 6 mp camera that took this, and the

choice of 1600 ISO in your comment and rating.) Thanks! Enjoy!

john

A replacement image has been uploaded to correct an error or two in the original posting.

1. The posting was made in Adobe RGB, and should have been made in 'post for web' sRGB, so the changed version is working its way through PN's servers.

2.  Also, because of a monitor which shows all color overaturated, the version uploaded was very unsaturated from the original, and the photo has been resaturated with the replacement upload, which results in much more color, including more 'yellow', which conforms with the scene that presented me, which was extremely colorful.

This version may stick in your browser until you clear your browser cache if you have clicked on it; so be sure to clear your browser cache to see the updated version when it works its way through PN's several servers.

john

John (Crosley)

I think that replacing and image is no longer an option.

I did in fact replace the image and am looking at my replaced image.

I appreciate that you completely desaturated and lightened my original post to make it a MEIR SAMEL snapshot, but it's entirely different than the work I posted.

While it may be 'technically correct in accurately depicting the relationship of the various geographical features, and lightens them so it looks less somber,' it's not my treatment, it's yours.

Replacing an image is still easily done, and quickly too; it was not ten minutes before my replacement image had worked its way through a server to my download, and with Google's Browser, I didn't even have to clear my browser, a first for me, and the replacement was done in record time, quite a new experience for something that sometimes took the better part of a day.

While I appreciate that you went to some work, I'm not sure to what purpose and am wondering why.

If I wanted to post your snapshot view, I could have done that easily, though my capture never looked a bit like yours; I didn't.

Basically you 'washed out' my capture, and to what purpose?'

Color me mystified.

john

John (Crosley)

I prepared a long, thoughtful reply with reference to the works of Ansel Adams and his landmark work on Half Dome, but three times my comment was rejected (though I copied nothing) by the anti-spam blocking software of Photo.net, the twelfth time that has happened this week, though I meticulously rewrote the comment into a bare text processor, letter by letter, that supposedly adds no 'symbols' of its own.

Interference by the anti-spam program with my postings which contain no copied material and no intentional HTML markings, is newly and significantly interfering with my commenting.

john

John (Crosley)

Thank you for the correction.

Unfortunate. I would have enjoyed reading your synopsis (if not too long) on "Half Dome" and which version you chose to comment on.

Why mystified? Attaching an alternate version of the post as a suggestion for improvement (in the opinion of the one writing the critique) is not infrequent. Attachments (quantitative) explain suggestions better than words (qualitative). Washed out the "capture".  Not at all. Where?