mikemorrell

Thar she blows! Attribution: This photo includes an edited version of Wikimedia photo 'Geyser Strokkuur in Iceland' which is shared under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license by Wikimedia user Beata May

I do some voluntary work. When I said that I didn't need any money for my voluntary service, a lady said 'well at least take some fruit".

I think my initial response was too quick and too harsh. I do like the juxtaposition between the symmetric elements and the asymmetric forms (rectangles). I also like the balance between the 2 plants and also the shadowplay. The diagonal (hill) adds interest. So I'm a lot more positive about the photo on 2nd viewing!

I'm sorry but this photo doesn't do much to me at all, I like the color palette but other than that, I see it as a photo of a (graphically) nice house on a hill. I'm from Wales and in my home village, there are numerous (graphically) nice houses on hills. This may affect my judgment. Another point I learned (and constantly forget;)!) is that the 'subject is not the photo'. In other words, a 'photo' is the photographer's subjective interpretation of a given 'scene'. TBH, I don't see much 'interpretiion in this photo. I may be completely wrong!

I should have read the article in the initial link. Thanks to @samstevens for providing the facts (and another article). It seems that these photographs were taken against the will of her ancestors and used to support racial difference theories that in turn supported slavery. I can well imagine the kind of distress that this woman feels at these photos being insensitively 'exploited' by Harvard, given their purpose and the circumstances in which they were taken. It's disappointing that Harvard seemingly just claimed 'ownership' and was not prepared to discuss the matter with the woman. No photos of my ancestors can in any way compare to this case. And as far as I'm aware, the few photos that do exist are all in family members' shoeboxes ;). But replying to @vilk_inc, I do have a feeling of 'extended family' that includes my direct ancestors. I can't imagine any situation where I would object - if asked - phot's to be published. But I would like (one of the family members) to be informed and consulted first.

Color inversion, no (i wouldn't know how to ;)), I originally had the 'vision' of the tree on the left as a 'living creature' and edited the photo accordingly. But it wasn't really convincing. So I added (in Photoshop) a hue & saturation adjustment and shifted the color ''green' to 'purple''. To my surprise (via Google) I later discovered that there was such a -fantasy - 'Purple Planet'!

A couple of IHMO 'flippant' responses so far but - at least in the US - this ruling has its merits but might open the doors to other 'distress through photos' claims. Street photos? TBH, although I've lived in NL for many years, I was born and brought up in the UK and I still visit there regularly. In both countries, the US is colloquially known as 'the country of litigation'. In the sense that residents routinely hire lawers to find possible claims. And that their lawyers routinely find ways of claiming benefits for their clients. Don't get me wrong, I'm completely OK with anyone challenging photos that are published without permission. I think I might have had a similar reaction to the woman in Connecticut if a photo of my grandmother appeared on a book without my (or my sister's) permission. I take mainly 'informal portraits' and I always get signed permission to publish these. At 'events' I'm either an 'official' or 'unofficial'' photographer' At events for I'm an 'official photographer' the organization covers my 'publication rights, At events at which I'm (just) an informal photograph, I try to make some agreement with yje organization. Otherwise, I just try my luck and hope for the best!

In general, you're right. What happened in this photo, Gerald? In the sense of what LR adjustments were you trying to make with which areas masked in and out? Did LR just ignore the maks and apply the adjustments to the whole photo? Or did the 'masking' just screw up the whole export process? Just curious! Mike

Excellent work @Leslie Reid! The tree struck me too as something worth highlighting. But as part of the whole photo, I didn't get very far. I really like your focus and PP of this tree! One of the things I love about this forum is that people (like you) continually inspire me to think outside my 'PP box'! Mike QUOTE="Leslie Reid, post: 5959982, member: 9782800"][ATTACH=full]1431566[/ATTACH] I wanted to feature the tree, and this set up 2 challenges: (1) to make the tree stand out; and (2) to give it a clear background. (1) In Lightroom I reduced clarity and texture, which made all the scattered highlights dull out, but also dulled out the tree. In Photoshop, I selected the tree and gave it an adjustment layer to restore its brightness. Back in LR, I used a brush to restore texture and clarity to parts of the foreground vegetation. (2) While I was in PS, I liquified the horizon above and to the left of the tree and nudged it up a bit to get it out of the frame. In retrospect, I should have just done some cloning, since the nudging left some distressed pixels up there—it looks out of focus. In my final crop, it turns out I didn’t need to nudge it as far as I did anyway. Finally, I made some minor adjustments to exposure, contrast, vibrance, white point, and black point in LR, and slightly darkened the ravine wall with an adjustment brush. I also messed around a bit with the base of the tree to make it clear that it had grown on the near ridge.

The photograph is of the Purple Planet National Monument ;)

-Hi Tom, as an amateur 'informal portrait' photographer. I think this photo is wonderful! I shoot exclusively digital (which allows me to 'tweak' my RAW photos). As far as I can tell, this photo is 'as shot'. Perhaps a slightly wider 'frame' might have given the photo a bit more context, but as an 'informal portrait' it's IHMO great as it is: - the subject is (at least to me) 'iconic' and well worth photographing! - the exposure is perfect - the aperture setting makes everything sharp that needs to be and blurs the background All in all, a stunning portrait and one that I would have been delighted to have taken. Thanks for sharing!

Haha " ...just a guess"! I had sussed out that it was a digital photo and - quite wrongly - (due to my PP 'tunnel vision') had assumed that the photo was a result of a Photoshop overlay, I've even more impressed by your photographic skills in taking this photo 'ín camera'!

Congrats on this wonderful photo, @michaellinder!!

I really like this clever 'double exposure'! Overlaying 'water' over the passengers matches the 'view through the window of the ferry/boat'' perfectly. So I like the creativity and artistry of the photographer who came up with this idea. She/he also skillfully produced the final photo. I particularly like the 'artistic' (or photographic) vision of how an overlaid 'water' photo of the passengers gradually flows into the water viewed through the windows! There a just a few 'ímperfections' which I think could be improved with not too much additional post-processing, and would be IMHO well worthwhile given the creativity and 'vision' for this photo. Notably some 'ghosting' in the top half of the photo: I'm not quite sure what's in the original and overlaid image but some kind of additional masking of the overlaid image would seem to me to be worthwhile. One point (just) to consider is that the pole on the left (in the original passenger photo is 'disruptive' in the sense that it runs vertically through 2 faces. The photographer might want to experiment with cropping the photo at the right side of the left pole. Of course, she/he would then lose the man on the left and lose some sky. But it might give her/him a 'cleaner' photo while retaining the essential creativity and artistry of the original. Congrats to the photographer! Mike

- cropped - levels + curves - sharpened - attempted to 'refloat the fleet' (illusion) which is very rough around the edges! I eventually just gave up

Your choice, Michael, but it's not a competition and there's no 'league'. The basic idea as far as I'm concerned is just to play around with a photo and see what comes up. In any case, it's always great to read your comments! Mike

I don't have this problem on my Samsung/Android phone but I did track down this article which explains why Android might be reloading the page and some solutions.

There are no rules as to how you apply your post-processing to this image; but, please let us know what you have done so we can all learn. If you would like to post a candidate image next week, please ensure it is of sufficiently high resolution for manipulation by the participants (3000px on the long side, 300dpi for example). Most of all, let's have fun while we are learning or demonstrating how we use our post-processing software, imaginations and interpretations.

I shoot excusively digital and almost always in semi-automatic modes, varying ISO and either aperture (usually) or shutter speed (action, sport). My main way of screwing up (at least for initial/some photos) is simply forgetting to reset the ISO value for a new shoot or between locations during one shoot. Second is forgetting to keep an eye on the shutter speed when shooting in 'aperture mode' with a certain ISO value. How does this happen? Because I'm so focused on the 'content' of photos - especially at 'events' photographing lots of people - that I forget to keep an eye on my 'exposure settings' Thankfully I soon notice that 'the numbers' at the bottom of the viewfinder aren't right and reset these. But I waste initial (blown out or too dark) shots. These days, for every photoshoot for which I have a programme (often my own) I write at the top in large letters "CHECK ISO!". FWIW I never take my my memory card out of my camera. I always carry a spare memory card and fully charge my camera battery and backup battery beforehand. I occasionally take a charger with me to be on the safe side but two batteries get me through my longest shoots.

Wow! I really, really like this stark silhouette a lot! For obvious reasons, it's a very iconic image. I've seen (color) photos of people carrying crosses before but this one inspired me to look up some articles on the internet about people (like this man) carrying a cross, sometimes for extremely long distances. Above all, what this symbolizes in the modern-day. Just looking at the photo as an 'iconic image', I would consider 2 edits that might strengthen the power of the 'image' even more. The first is to remove (by cloning & patching) the tree branches at the top left. For me, these (which in various forms are included in numerous other compositions) slightly detract from the power of this 'stark iconic image'. The downside of removing these is of course that the image then becomes more 'abstract' with less real-life context. To a much lesser extent, the same is true of the grass tops at the very bottom. Again, some minor cloning and patching would give a 'cleaner' bottom edge. The grass, branches and especially the flowers on the other side of the road/track form a perfect background to the walking figure! All in all, it's a very powerful image and the 'silhouette' treatment works wonderfully well. Congrats to the photographer! for depicting the walker in this way! I can well imagine this image being (gratefully) used on Christian organization/church websites with appropriate New Testament references and messages applicable to modern-day life. I'm not particularly religious and I'm not a regular member of any organization or Church. I just think that this image is that good. PS. I took a quick look on Shutterstock and IStockPhoto. Both have images related to 'carrying cross' ranging from reenactments & staged photos of Christ carrying His cross to paintings to highly stylized wooden/cartoon versions. I haven't looked through the other 80% but my gut feeling is that this image might well be a valuable addition to their collections. Whether you'd earn much from it is anybody's guess. But I for one would be proud to have any of my photos accepted by Shutterstock! Best wishes, Mike

Interesting detail! Close up (scrolling) the photo looks fine. Viewed as a whole on one screen, I find some of the fine details (wood grain, pock marks, ...) tend to get a bit lost in the "redness". You might to want experiment with a bit more sharpening (HPF) and contrast. These might bring out the wood grain more.

I don't like the B/W version. I miss the warm colors of the original, especially on the floor and in the windows. I also miss the backlit grass in the garden. But I do see the point of 'focusing' just on the bench and on its reflection. It's an interesting variation (as is the dodged version).

I like the original more. The darker 'frame' draws my attention toward the garden bench with the backlit grass and its reflection on the floor. The largely hidden 'content' in the darker areas adds a sense of mystery. I like the way the two rectangles (door and window) echo each other.

Added color to rocks, replaced sky and adjusted contrast. Added kayaker for 'human interest':).