I do know what colour looks like

[shreds]

What very interesting comments from around the world.

Although I got married in Scotland, I am not Scottish, so cannot claim any ancestry (that I know of), or daily exposure to the beauty of the country. I have however travelled the whole length of Scotland numerous times and also been coast to coast too (I will be there again in two months time) so feel I can attest to the true rendering of the colours and the light in Donald's colour shot. It is very true to what it looks like in reality, so Donald has achieved his objective in rendering a true likeness of the scene he saw.

The air is very clear and has an interesting attraction for the photographer where the air and light pollution are less, witness the hoards of photographers who clammer to the well known spots of the country every year. The west coast of Ireland has some similarities, as has Iceland from the photographers perspective, in the places I have visited.

It is great to see Donald experimenting outside of his established comfort zone that he already excels in. Thank goodness the fashion for HDR and heavy saturation isn't everybody's cup of tea, wherever they are from.

[Donald]

OK I'll just go do something useful now

Keep making wonderful images!

[dje]

Donald, it's interesting how we all have different tastes. I happen to think that this is a lovely image with beautiful colours which epitomise the Scottish countryside for me. I would consider a 16:9 version of this, still vertically centered.

Dave

[ucci]

Help please. I am confused. Is this a thread to discuss whether or not we think how well the our mate Donald has captured his perceived shot? Or just how much clever high falutin' post processing with clever software should be used to make Donald's post 'more better?' Okay, so I admit to not being the smartest roo in the top paddock and easily confused. But just how far away are we trying to take Donald's capture away from what originally caught his eye and had him whip out his camera?

[DanK]

Ken,

Donald started this thread with this:

But any comments you have will be welcome.

Some of us responded to that. Just speaking for myself, the two minor edits I suggested are basic--one is something I learned in my first days of wet darkroom printing in 1968--and hardly count as "clever high falutin' post processing with clever software should be used to make Donald's post 'more better?'"

Dan

[Manfred M]

Help please. I am confused. Is this a thread to discuss whether or not we think how well the our mate Donald has captured his perceived shot? Or just how much clever high falutin' post processing with clever software should be used to make Donald's post 'more better?' Okay, so I admit to not being the smartest roo in the top paddock and easily confused. But just how far away are we trying to take Donald's capture away from what originally caught his eye and had him whip out his camera?

Ken - everyone looks at a scene differently. Donald usually converts his images to B&W he uses that same "clever high falutin' post processing with clever software" to do that. In fact he pushes his B&W images a lot harder than I tend to push mine.

Our cameras capture data. Some software designer has designed algorithms to do this automatically. When people speak about the Canon look or the Nikon look, that is effectively what they are talking about, the straight-out-of-camera (SOOC) JPEG files that are created with their recipe.

When we convert raw data into an image file, we get to do this ourselves, although those of us that use Adobe software can pick a "look" that is fairly close to what the camera manufacturers turn out. We can create our own recipe to get the look that we want. In general, when working with raw images both sharpening and contrast (and potentially some noise reduction at higher ISO settings) are all things that are built into the camera's processing software. We have to add those effects ourselves when working with raw data. Dan has tweaked the contrast in the version he is working on. It is definitely something I do virtually 100% of the time.

Most of the images I post have very limited post-processing work done to them that I would have done in the wet darkroom in the film days. The terms "dodging" and "burning" come from the wet darkroom. I used those technique when I printed with an enlarger and do so in virtually every image I produce in the "digital darkroom". Ansel Adams, the renowned American landscape photographer once said "Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.". That sentiment is just as true for digital images as it was for film. Again, that bit of burning that Dan has done is something I would have also done. I would likely down a bit of dodging in some of the areas in shade as well, but that tends to be part of my standard workflow.

I likely would have done some local sharpening as well. I tend to leave the sky and water alone in my work as I don't like sharpening those areas, but the rest of the image would get that treatment if I were doing the PP work. As for adjusting the saturation (or vibrance) up, I virtually never do that; again my personal taste and workflow. There are times when I will reduce saturation or vibrance to get the look I want.

Donald is an accomplished B&W photographer. That genre requires a totally different skill set than colour work. As Donald's colour vision is imperfect, I fully understand why he is very conservative when it comes to colour work. Asking for comments and advice in a genre where is not comfortable in makes a lot of sense. I would do exactly the same thing.

[ucci]

Many thanks to those who expressed erudite explanations in response to my plea for help. However I can't help thinking I may rather have put Felix silvestris catus amid a kit of Columba livia domestica. Time methinks for old ucci once more to wander off into the sunset and leave well enough alone. Cheers to all. Take care, stay safe, and keep well.