If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
A stunning image of Stonehenge
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 19:02:42 -0500, Ken Hart
wrote: On 1/20/19 5:57 PM, David B. wrote: From my Photographic FB group. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...&theater&ifg=1 Please let me know if you can view the image at this link. I am signed in to FB. This link says it is not available at this time. Same for me. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
A stunning image of Stonehenge
On 22/01/2019 08:45, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 19:02:42 -0500, Ken Hart wrote: On 1/20/19 5:57 PM, David B. wrote: From my Photographic FB group. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...&theater&ifg=1 Please let me know if you can view the image at this link. I am signed in to FB. This link says it is not available at this time. Same for me. Please read my earlier response to Ken Hart, Eric. Let me know if you still cannot view the image. -- David B. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
A stunning image of last night's special moon
On 22/01/2019 10:53, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 January 2019 08:42:21 UTC, David B. wrote: On 21/01/2019 23:25, Savageduck wrote: On Jan 21, 2019, newshound wrote (in articleBbSdnXGEE9iHrNvBnZ2dnUU78aXNnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk): Those are *great* photos. ...but are they? They look good to me, but I'm not a photographer! Too many pictures of kids not enough cats ;-) I'd go along with that! ;-) SOME people have NINE (9) cats! Bet you can't guess who that might be! ;-) But returning to the moon and statue, am I really the only person who thinks photographs should normally document reality? No. However, some folks feel that it is OK to demonstrate their artistic interpretations with things like composites. Then sometimes one can use post processing to tweak reality, just a tad. https://adobe.ly/2FFXv3d To me, that looks like overkill. It doesn't look quite right to me either, but what is reality anyway. I'm glad I'm not the only one to think it looks a bit 'unreal'. https://www.flickr.com/photos/whisky...-ywTmj3-zsQJef two real pictures above combined. Correct. Jesse followed up with this image: https://goo.gl/HVDNCR He obviously has lots of patience! I decided to go to bed at 1:30am rather than stay up another couple of hours as I'd done the blood red moon before and the sky seemed a bit hazy over London. https://www.flickr.com/photos/whisky...57659160438796 I can remember viewing YOUR images - very good they are too! :-) -- David B. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
A stunning image of Stonehenge
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 13:30:15 GMT, "MC" wrote:
David B. wrote: On 22/01/2019 00:02, Ken Hart wrote: On 1/20/19 5:57 PM, David B. wrote: *From my Photographic FB group. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...2969&set=gm.23 87141887996588&type=3&theater&ifg=1 Please let me know if you can view the image at this link. I am signed in to FB. This link says it is not available at this time. Hi Ken Thanks for letting me know. I've recently discovered that the 'problem' stems from Facebook's sharing permissions - one can only share images from a Public group (mine is 'private' - although new members will be welcomed, I'm sure!). Please look here to find the image. If you cannot reach it there, let me know and I'll ask permission to copy it. https://www.facebook.com/Smirv https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater That's not stunning. Looks nothing like Stonehenge. It just a bunch of copy and paste elements of one part of it to create a different henge with an over-saturated sunset sky dropped in (rather badly, if I might add). The foreground does not even look like its from there. I know Stonehenge and to refer to this image as "Stonehenge" is very misleading. It is merely, again, a composit of many elements and IMO should not even be considered a photograph. It is an attempt (not a good one) to be an artisic impression of "a" henge but not a photograph of Stonehenge. MC It's Stonehenge II - in Texas. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
A stunning image of Stonehenge
On 22/01/2019 13:30, MC wrote:
David B. wrote: On 22/01/2019 00:02, Ken Hart wrote: On 1/20/19 5:57 PM, David B. wrote: Â*From my Photographic FB group. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...2969&set=gm.23 87141887996588&type=3&theater&ifg=1 Please let me know if you can view the image at this link. I am signed in to FB. This link says it is not available at this time. Hi Ken Thanks for letting me know. I've recently discovered that the 'problem' stems from Facebook's sharing permissions - one can only share images from a Public group (mine is 'private' - although new members will be welcomed, I'm sure!). Please look here to find the image. If you cannot reach it there, let me know and I'll ask permission to copy it. https://www.facebook.com/Smirv https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater That's not stunning. Looks nothing like Stonehenge. It just a bunch of copy and paste elements of one part of it to create a different henge with an over-saturated sunset sky dropped in (rather badly, if I might add). The foreground does not even look like its from there. I know Stonehenge and to refer to this image as "Stonehenge" is very misleading. It is merely, again, a composit of many elements and IMO should not even be considered a photograph. It is an attempt (not a good one) to be an artisic impression of "a" henge but not a photograph of Stonehenge. Being 'eagle-eyed' you might have spotted this comment by Jesse himself on 20 January .... "Stonehenge II located in Ingram Texas on the Hill Country Arts Foundation property." FYI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge_II The image certainly DOES look stunning when filling the screen of my 27in iMac with a Retina display! Possibly not quite so much if you are looking at it on a smart phone! ;-) -- David B. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
A stunning image of Stonehenge
On 1/22/19 8:30 AM, MC wrote:
David B. wrote: On 22/01/2019 00:02, Ken Hart wrote: On 1/20/19 5:57 PM, David B. wrote: Â*From my Photographic FB group. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...2969&set=gm.23 87141887996588&type=3&theater&ifg=1 Please let me know if you can view the image at this link. I am signed in to FB. This link says it is not available at this time. Hi Ken Thanks for letting me know. I've recently discovered that the 'problem' stems from Facebook's sharing permissions - one can only share images from a Public group (mine is 'private' - although new members will be welcomed, I'm sure!). Please look here to find the image. If you cannot reach it there, let me know and I'll ask permission to copy it. https://www.facebook.com/Smirv https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater That's not stunning. Looks nothing like Stonehenge. It just a bunch of copy and paste elements of one part of it to create a different henge with an over-saturated sunset sky dropped in (rather badly, if I might add). The foreground does not even look like its from there. I know Stonehenge and to refer to this image as "Stonehenge" is very misleading. It is merely, again, a composit of many elements and IMO should not even be considered a photograph. It is an attempt (not a good one) to be an artisic impression of "a" henge but not a photograph of Stonehenge. MC The photograph is a bit too "busy" for my taste. I noticed that one of the comments got real close to the infamous insult: 'Wow, great picture! You must have a really good camera!' Akin to telling a chef: 'Great food! You must have some really good pots and pans!' -- Ken Hart |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
A stunning image of Stonehenge
On 1/20/2019 7:27 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 23:46:06 +0000, "David B." "David wrote: I can, of course, take a copy of the photograph. Where would you like me to put it Asking us where you should put it not really a good idea. Reminds me of the time I took advantage of a BOGO on large packages of toilet paper. When I brought them home, my wife said "just where should i put them?" I asked if she really wanted me to answer. -- PeterN |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
A stunning image of Stonehenge
On 1/22/2019 5:11 PM, Ken Hart wrote:
[snip] The photograph is a bit too "busy" for my taste. I noticed that one of the comments got real close to the infamous insult: 'Wow, great picture! You must have a really good camera!' Akin to telling a chef: 'Great food! You must have some really good pots and pans!' The author of the photo needs help. But how do you do that? In the world of visual arts I sometimes wonder if there isn't the equivalent of tone deafness in music. That's where a person can't tell the difference between a right not and a wrong note. AFAIK there's no cure for it. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
A stunning image of last night's special moon
On 1/21/2019 3:52 PM, newshound wrote:
snip Those are *great* photos. But returning to the moon and statue, am I really the only person who thinks photographs should normally document reality? We all understand perfectly how the advertising photographer needs to employ all sorts of fakery to get just the right "image" for the client, and we don't believe adverts anyway. But when you have an apparently dramatic image like the original, or even more so ones which show an airliner silhouetted against the moon or the setting sun, I feel cheated if it is just been made from two boring stock images in photoshop, rather than having been captured by a great skill and perhaps just a little bit of good luck. There's even a magnificent ISS transit that I believe to be genuine which fills me with awe. Many believe as you. I think photos can also express a feeling: https://www.dropbox.com/s/egle6lb2xknjt0v/Spirits%20View.jpg?dl=0 Make a statement: https://www.dropbox.com/s/taqwmxmck57jklr/Hope%20for%20the%20Future.jpg?dl=0 Interpret an action. etc. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ktx9lgnuj6srhtf/Lift%20the%20Lid%20First.jpg?dl=0 -- PeterN |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
A stunning image of Stonehenge
On 23/01/2019 00:54, MC wrote:
David B. wrote: On 22/01/2019 13:30, MC wrote: David B. wrote: On 22/01/2019 00:02, Ken Hart wrote: On 1/20/19 5:57 PM, David B. wrote: Â*From my Photographic FB group. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...2969&set=gm.23 87141887996588&type=3&theater&ifg=1 Please let me know if you can view the image at this link. I am signed in to FB. This link says it is not available at this time. Hi Ken Thanks for letting me know. I've recently discovered that the 'problem' stems from Facebook's sharing permissions - one can only share images from a Public group (mine is 'private' - although new members will be welcomed, I'm sure!). Please look here to find the image. If you cannot reach it there, let me know and I'll ask permission to copy it. https://www.facebook.com/Smirv https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater That's not stunning. Looks nothing like Stonehenge. It just a bunch of copy and paste elements of one part of it to create a different henge with an over-saturated sunset sky dropped in (rather badly, if I might add). The foreground does not even look like its from there. I know Stonehenge and to refer to this image as "Stonehenge" is very misleading. It is merely, again, a composit of many elements and IMO should not even be considered a photograph. It is an attempt (not a good one) to be an artisic impression of "a" henge but not a photograph of Stonehenge. Being 'eagle-eyed' you might have spotted this comment by Jesse himself on 20 January .... "Stonehenge II located in Ingram Texas on the Hill Country Arts Foundation property." Then you should have referred to it as that in your Subject line. I hadn't realised at the time I made my post. There was no intention to mislead anyone. My apologies for any offence caused. At least you've learned something new! FYI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge_II Hmmm. If you ever get to visit the real Stonehenge you will realise what I mean when I say that this is "tacky". I used to live in Somerset and have visited Stonehenge many times. My children will have fond memories of being able to clamber in and around the granite stones! The image certainly DOES look stunning when filling the screen of my 27in iMac with a Retina display! Possibly not quite so much if you are looking at it on a smart phone! ;-) Its a poor, over-worked composit image, with poorly thought out colouration/saturation. Also, you only have to look at the the transition between sky and treeline and concrete slabs to see that this is a very poor attempt at playing with photoshop. If the creator of this image felt he needed to **** about so much when creating it then I have to ask why he thought it necessary to keep the treeline in the picture in the first place. He may as well have removed the trees from the image as they really add nothing but to enhance the poorly executed photoshopping. I am sure a ten year old could have done better. You should tell that to the photographer directly. Maybe even give him some help and advice. If you think this is a "stunning" image then you have very simple tastes, that is all I can say. I have an open mind and try to see the good in everything. Enjoy your day. :-) -- David B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stunning Eagle Shot! | Brian C. Baird | Digital Photography | 29 | August 3rd 04 07:12 PM |
Stunning Eagle Shot! | Brian C. Baird | 35mm Photo Equipment | 14 | August 3rd 04 02:16 AM |