Rise and Shine and enjoy the calmness . . . Constructive cc is welcome.

[Wavelength]

Excellent image and super processing.... can you please post the first edited image along with sooc, so that one does not have to scroll up and down for comparing?

[Mike Buckley]

Kathy,

The reason I asked about the calibration is that there is a lot of discussion in your thread about color. Yet there is little sense in my mind in taking other people's thoughts about colors in your photos into account when you aren't using a calibrated monitor. That's because there is a great possibility that the people using a calibrated monitor are seeing different colors than you are seeing.

Also keep in mind that a lot of people comment about the colors who themselves are also not using calibrated monitors, so you should also keep that in mind when you are reviewing their comments. That explains why I mention my calibrated monitor when I critique colors.

I actually wish there was an automated display in every post explaining whether or not the author is using a calibrated monitor. Such a feature would provide for far more informed discussions about color.

[Mike Buckley]

can you please post the first edited image along with sooc, so that one does not have to scroll up and down for comparing?

If you click any image in a web page to display it in the Lytebox, you can then use the Forward and Backward arrows on your keyboard or displayed at the bottom of the image when you hover over the image. Both methods will allow you to automatically view all of the images in that web page in order and at a larger size than displayed in the thread. That is one reason I set CiC to display 40 posts per page, the maximum allowed.

[Kathy O]

Kathy,

The reason I asked about the calibration is that there is a lot of discussion in your thread about color. Yet there is little sense in my mind in taking other people's thoughts about colors in your photos into account when you aren't using a calibrated monitor. That's because there is a great possibility that the people using a calibrated monitor are seeing different colors than you are seeing.

Also keep in mind that a lot of people comment about the colors who themselves are also not using calibrated monitors, so you should also keep that in mind when you are reviewing their comments. That explains why I mention my calibrated monitor when I critique colors.

I actually wish there was an automated display in every post explaining whether or not the author is using a calibrated monitor. Such a feature would provide for far more informed discussions about color.

Yes that all makes sense. I really want to calibrate my monitor so that I know for sure about my colors but I have to pay some hospital bills first Thank you for bringing up that discussion -- it is important.

[Wavelength]

Thank you Mike, very much

[Manfred M]

+1 to what Mike Buckley has written.

Our computer screens are probably the weakest link in the whole digital workflow when it comes to photography (and videography). Please note, I refer to these devices as computer screens as they are NOT monitors. Monitors are high end screens that are purpose built to accurately reproduce video output. The are very expensive and are used by professionals when doing precise colour grading work or colour correction work. These monitors must also be maintained to ensure that they reproduce colours accurately

Computer screens are generally built to a price point; which is a nice way of saying they are generally made to be as cheap as possible. They are aimed at casual computer users who surf the net, watch movies, play games and do other related things. Processing colour images or colour grading video are going to be things most users never really care about. They want bright punchy colours, so most people have their computer screens turned up much to bright and have the contrast and saturation levels cranked way up. These may look the way we want them to, but they are definitely NOT set up to reproduce colours accurately.

If you have ever been in a professional studio where colour work is being done commercially, the first thing that will strike you is how dim the lighting is and how the room is done in boring, neutral colours. The monitors are set up to the standard 120 cd/m2 and the screens have protective hoods to eliminate stray reflections. These devices have been set up with profiles to ensure that the colour reproduction is accurate. They are regularly recalibrated and reprofiled to ensure optimal colour reproduction. These monitors cost a lot of money and are wide gamut displays.

Most of us amateurs do not work under these exacting conditions, although I expect some of us are closer than others.

The problem is exactly what Mike pointed out, unless we are all looking at the image on a high quality screen that has been calibrated and profiled, we won't be looking at the same image and we won't even know how close the two displays are. If we are both looking at a print on my kitchen table, we'll at least be looking at it under the same conditions, and eyesight issues apart, we can have a meaningful discussion of the colours and brightness of the image.

So Mike has asked the same question I would have. If the answer is that you are not on a calibrated and profiled screen, the chances are great that we are not seeing the same thing. If you have done the same as many people and use the factory settings or tweaks you have done by eye the image could look right to you, but it could be burning out my eyeballs because it looks so over the top on my screen.

Enough of the rant.... I still think this is a great image.

[Kathy O]

+1 to what Mike Buckley has written.

Our computer screens are probably the weakest link in the whole digital workflow when it comes to photography (and videography). Please note, I refer to these devices as computer screens as they are NOT monitors. Monitors are high end screens that are purpose built to accurately reproduce video output. The are very expensive and are used by professionals when doing precise colour grading work or colour correction work. These monitors must also be maintained to ensure that they reproduce colours accurately

Computer screens are generally built to a price point; which is a nice way of saying they are generally made to be as cheap as possible. They are aimed at casual computer users who surf the net, watch movies, play games and do other related things. Processing colour images or colour grading video are going to be things most users never really care about. They want bright punchy colours, so most people have their computer screens turned up much to bright and have the contrast and saturation levels cranked way up. These may look the way we want them to, but they are definitely NOT set up to reproduce colours accurately.

If you have ever been in a professional studio where colour work is being done commercially, the first thing that will strike you is how dim the lighting is and how the room is done in boring, neutral colours. The monitors are set up to the standard 120 cd/m2 and the screens have protective hoods to eliminate stray reflections. These devices have been set up with profiles to ensure that the colour reproduction is accurate. They are regularly recalibrated and reprofiled to ensure optimal colour reproduction. These monitors cost a lot of money and are wide gamut displays.

Most of us amateurs do not work under these exacting conditions, although I expect some of us are closer than others.

The problem is exactly what Mike pointed out, unless we are all looking at the image on a high quality screen that has been calibrated and profiled, we won't be looking at the same image and we won't even know how close the two displays are. If we are both looking at a print on my kitchen table, we'll at least be looking at it under the same conditions, and eyesight issues apart, we can have a meaningful discussion of the colours and brightness of the image.

So Mike has asked the same question I would have. If the answer is that you are not on a calibrated and profiled screen, the chances are great that we are not seeing the same thing. If you have done the same as many people and use the factory settings or tweaks you have done by eye the image could look right to you, but it could be burning out my eyeballs because it looks so over the top on my screen.

Enough of the rant.... I still think this is a great image.

Thank you for the helpful information and the nice comment about the image.

[Rob Douglas]

Excellent! I love the deep warm tones. Very tranquil image.

[IzzieK]

Kathy...I love the colour that turned out after you processed it. I think it is a wonderful effect. I did not like the original so much...I didn't even notice your husband until Rita mentioned it. And I didn't enlarged it in Lytebox until much later on. Only then did I agreed with John (2) about the timelessness of the image...so go ahead, try to lose the hubby there and see how you go...if he sees that in bigger print and remembered he was there and now he isn't, you'll be in bi.i.i.i.i.i.gggggg! trouble.

[Kathy O]

Kathy...I love the colour that turned out after you processed it. I think it is a wonderful effect. I did not like the original so much...I didn't even notice your husband until Rita mentioned it. And I didn't enlarged it in Lytebox until much later on. Only then did I agreed with John (2) about the timelessness of the image...so go ahead, try to lose the hubby there and see how you go...if he sees that in bigger print and remembered he was there and now he isn't, you'll be in bi.i.i.i.i.i.gggggg! trouble.

Thank you Izzi If I make a print I will probably make 2 prints one with him in so we can remember being there together and one without, just the presence of nature.

[Kathy O]

Excellent! I love the deep warm tones. Very tranquil image.

Thank you Rob

[IzzieK]

Thank you Izzi If I make a print I will probably make 2 prints one with him in so we can remember being there together and one without, just the presence of nature.

Oooh...I like that idea better...