Bronte Beach

[joebranko]

Early morning at Bronte Beach, near to where Bronte Creek empties into Lake Ontario, in Bronte ,Ontario.

[Wavelength]

A really lovely shot; i feel cool and comfortable, looking at this...

[Geoff F]

Looks much better in the Lightbox view where the fine detail becomes more noticeable.

[joebranko]

Thanks Nandakumar

[joebranko]

Looks much better in the Lightbox view where the fine detail becomes more noticeable.

Thanks Geoff.

[Rufus]

A lovely restful scene which is nicely composed.

To be super-critical the distant horizon appears, to my eye at least, to slope down to the left and I would maybe clone out the tree trunk and small branch that grow out from the right side of the frame.

[joebranko]

A lovely restful scene which is nicely composed.

To be super-critical the distant horizon appears, to my eye at least, to slope down to the left and I would maybe clone out the tree trunk and small branch that grow out from the right side of the frame.

I have tried another 'horizon' and remover the foliage from the upper right as you suggested.

This is the result:

[DanK]

A very nice shot. Well composed. It's a restful image.

[joebranko]

Looks much better in the Lightbox view where the fine detail becomes more noticeable.

Thanks Geoff,
Was there something I can do in post to improve the appearance so that it did not need to be viewed in Lightbox to see the fine detail?

[xpatUSA]

Thanks Geoff,
Was there something I can do in post to improve the appearance so that it did not need to be viewed in Lightbox to see the fine detail?

Butting in ... When an image is down-sized, "fine detail" goes away because of interpolation, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_scaling

Image interpolation occurs when you resize or distort your image from one pixel grid to another. Image resizing is necessary when you need to increase or decrease the total number of pixels, whereas remapping can occur when you are correcting for lens distortion or rotating an image. Zooming refers to increase the quantity of pixels, so that when you zoom an image, you will see more detail.

https://sisu.ut.ee/imageprocessing/book/3

A down-sampled image can be "improved" to an extent by applying more sharpening to your image before posting. But then the LightBox view will look over-sharpened.

You pays yer money and takes yer choice!

[Geoff F]

Thanks Geoff,
Was there something I can do in post to improve the appearance so that it did not need to be viewed in Lightbox to see the fine detail?

No, Joe, just post normal images. The view which appears in the normal viewed post is a slightly lower quality image than the one which can be seen in the Lightbox view.

But, a lot of people, particularly newcomers to CinC or casual viewers, aren't aware of the alternative higher resolution images. Actually, I'm not sure of the origins of that Lightbox name. It is a name which was created some time ago and continues to be used by those of us who were around at that time; but there is no real significance to the title.

[xpatUSA]

I'm not sure of the origins of that Lightbox name. It is a name which was created some time ago and continues to be used by those of us who were around at that time; but there is no real significance to the title.

At one time, people here were also calling it the "Lytebox" which appears to be a known Open Source utility:

http://www.resoo.org/www/javascript/...0-%20Home.html
.

[MrB]

It is a pleasant, peaceful scene. It seems slightly high key for me, but that might be your intention.

Philip

[joebranko]

It is a pleasant, peaceful scene. It seems slightly high key for me, but that might be your intention.

Philip

Thanks for commenting Philip. Not sure what the Canadian equivalent to 'high key' is, but thanks 😳

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by MrB It is a pleasant, peaceful scene. It seems slightly high key for me, but that might be your intention.

Thanks for commenting Philip. Not sure what the Canadian equivalent to 'high key' is, but thanks 

On my monitor, the image is a little on the bright side, Joe. Just a tad.

Your countryman Manfred has used the same phrase "high key", but here y'are anyway:

https://www.slrlounge.com/glossary/h...hy-definition/
.

[DanK]

It's not high-key. It covers the full tonal range, with no lack of shadows. Here is the histogram:



However, IMHO, there is an issue of brightness here, and having seen the second beach shot, I think it's worth bringing up.

IMHO, the issue of brightness is that the beach is too bright relative to the rest of the image. It's so bright that it draws the eyes to that edge, which I wouldn't want. Here is a crude edit darkening the beach, which I did partly with a simple selection and partly by burning:



Not a polished job, but I think the comparison between this and the original should make clear what I'm aiming at. I think I might also cool off parts of the left-hand side as well.

Joe, what ties this to comments I made about the other shot is that in both cases, I was suggesting that you consider adjusting the relative brightness of parts of the image. I'm reminded of Manfred's advice that he spends vastly more time on local adjustments than on global ones. My mix is less extreme than Manfred's, but I agree with his general points. Once you've done the global edits, it's time to look at (1) the relationships among areas, as in this case, and (2) problematic areas.

I hope this is helpful.

[MrB]

Apologies that I used the wrong term, Dan, but you and Ted realised what I meant. I was simply trying to state, in a brief comment, what made the image less appealing to me. Thank you for your detailed and helpful description. It would seem that at least our thoughts about the first image appear to be on a similar wavelength (almost literally).

Philip

[Manfred M]

On my monitor, the image is a little on the bright side, Joe. Just a tad.

Your countryman Manfred has used the same phrase "high key", but here y'are anyway:
.

I agree the image is a bit hot, but this is by no means a high key image.

High key originated in the television studios of the 1950s where the dynamic range of the imaging tubes used in the cameras was so low that lighting had to avoid harsh shadows and intense highlights. In more modern photography, high key tends to be with a subject that has predominantly light objects, against a light coloured background with very light shadows.

I've posted this image before; it is high key.





Joe's image has a full tonal range and lots of shadows.

Dan has nailed it in terms of what I see as the issues with the shot; the sand and possibly the sky are too bright.

[joebranko]

Thanks Philip, Ted, Dan, Manfred. I can see that the sand and also the sky is on the bright side. I noticed it when I was doing post the first time. But I kept looking back ( mentally) to how bright it was when I was there on the beach that morning and that restrained me from toning it down. However I am not trying to be a journalist, and I do like to make pictures that are pleasing to the eye, and having seen Dan's interpretation of this shot I must agree it looks nicer than mine, so later today I will tone it down.

Thanks Philip for using the phrase 'high-key'. I was not familiar with the phrase in a photography context, and could not think what you meant. Hope you did not find my comment ungrateful. But the question opened an interesting conversation which was certainly educational for me.


Here are the changes I made. I darkened the beach and sky, and lightened the dark green water under the trees. I think it is more pleasant.

[MrB]

Thanks Philip for using the phrase 'high-key'. I was not familiar with the phrase in a photography context, and could not think what you meant. Hope you did not find my comment ungrateful. But the question opened an interesting conversation which was certainly educational for me.

Not at all, Joe - see my post #17 above - this thread has been a welcome education for me too.

Philip