Light At The End Of The Tunnel

[DigitalScape]

[Tony M]

Hi John,

The image is a bit small. Can you upload a larger one?

Why is the sea lighter on the sides? I can't figure that one out.

Could you try lightening the shadows and increasing the whites a little on the sign? I'm not sure, but it may add to the interest of the photo if one could read the sign.

Tony

[DigitalScape]

Tony, The image size is my standard web version of the image - 800 pixels on the long side (most of the image are the sides of the tunnel). I do not know why the sea is alight on the sides of the tunnel - it is that way on the RAW file as well 9so not an artifact m=of my processing). I did not lighten the side of the tunnel or the sign as I felt it took away from the sunset. FYI, the sign is a warning sign about unstable cliffs - stay away from the edges.

[Shadowman]

Very nice.

[NorthernFocus]

Nicely seen. It makes for an interesting image.

...it is that way on the RAW file...

As viewed how? If you're viewing it on the camera maker's software you're not looking at an unaltered RAW file. There do appear to be processing artifacts.

[DigitalScape]

As viewed how? If you're viewing it on the camera maker's software you're not looking at an unaltered RAW file. There do appear to be processing artifacts.

Dan, I was looking at the RAW file with Photoshop Bridge.

[JBW]

why 800 on the long side?

[DigitalScape]

why 800 on the long side?

Brian, no special reason. It is what I have done for many years, and I have an action I have written that does the size reduction and sharpening for the web.

[tao2]

550-800 pixels on the long side is a good deterent tae image theft as there's not a lot tae work with for the downloader. Ah'd have a look at the sharpening setting though, John. It looks over-sharpened tae me.

PS

Ah think the problem with the bright edges is reverse vignetting. This can be done manually in PP. Not very familiar with yer camera but if the Canon has "illumination correction" and it's turned on , it'll sense the tunnel as a vignette and automatically brighten the edges. IC can be turned off in menus.

[jcuknz]

why 800 on the long side?

Because that is a sensible size for posting to the web but the pixel peepers of CiC want it bigger

I tend to use it so that people getting the image do not have to scroll to see all of it, not all systems reduce the size to fit the monitor. Something I have been trying to get my son to bother about instead of just sending me camera shots.

[TonyW]

Dan, I was looking at the RAW file with Photoshop Bridge.

When Bridge displays the raw file, I believe it uses the jpeg file which is embedded in the raw file, which is dependent on the image settings that are in the camera, at least until it gets changed in Photoshop or ACR.

I quite like the image - a nice concept. If it were mine, I would experiment with cropping closer to get less tunnel and/or lightening the inside of the tunnel, but I am not sure ahead of time whether I would prefer that.

[Wavelength]

Very nice image

[IzzieK]

A very well executed image. Superb even. I have not read any of the comments above but I love this image very much. Excellent shot!

[DigitalScape]

Thank you everyone for all the comments and discussion. I find it informative to see/read different takes on the image.

Boab, I need to check on the "illumination correction" setting (I am shooting with a Canon 7D) - thanks for that insight.

TonyW, I believe I have Adobe Bridge set up to have the previews based on my default Bridge settings - not an embedded JPEG image.

[Tony M]

Tony, The image size is my standard web version of the image - 800 pixels on the long side (most of the image are the sides of the tunnel). I do not know why the sea is alight on the sides of the tunnel - it is that way on the RAW file as well 9so not an artifact m=of my processing). I did not lighten the side of the tunnel or the sign as I felt it took away from the sunset. FYI, the sign is a warning sign about unstable cliffs - stay away from the edges.

Hi John,

I didn't mean to suggest lightening the sides of the tunnel, just the sign. It was just a thought and I'd need to see it before knowing whether I liked it.

I understand that putting higher resolution images on the web can result in others using them; however, it can help when giving critique to a photo, especially with regards to unwanted sharpening effects, chromatic aberration etc. I think CiC resizes images to fit in the browser window, so image size is not an issue.

It's a nice composition; I think the amount of tunnel in it is fine. In my humble opinion, the icing on the cake would be for the branches at the top not to be in the photo, but short of removing them in PP I guess it'd be hard to exclude them.

Tony