Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thank you Alec for the french connection. Merci Bien. J’ai quelque chose d’étudier. It is indeed useful for everyone who tries to capture halos. It turns out that I am not well enough equipped. I use Photoshop Elements or Lightroom. To my surprise they both don’t offer the function of a channel mixer.
I do emphasize the existence of halos when necessary by adding contrast and then pumping up the saturation. Here-under an example of one of the rare occasions I spotted a lot of arcs together.
22 degrees, sundogs, parhelic (parts) ,UTA, Parry, supralateral (I suppose), CZA.Ha, nice arcs Keelin and Alec.
@Alec: the 5th order rainbow will be on my list from now one. I checked some older pictures (just two) of a double rainbow with Alexander’s Dark Band and to my disappointment (?) and not to my surprise it did not show up. I had to try, but I think one must be very lucky butto spot the phenomenon.Sometimes the 22 degrees halo does not appear, but only its longhorns.
Upper Tangent Arc
Thanks for this very clear answer Alec.
It is so sad to read about the unfortunate and mysteriously ended quest of Dr. Corvidova . The world seems to be bereft of a brilliant mind. Nevertheless many theories can be heard when one knows whom to listen to. There is this hand written copy of the journal together with the denial of alien interference by official sources. What is at stake that needs to be covered up? And then there are the mysterious conditions of his disappearance. Some sources suggest he deliberately vanished to conceal his search to gather details for a writing of an Above Top Secret position/briefing paper about chimtrails. Not one single official source is willing to confirm anything like that. Another unfortunate disappearance? Who knows more? The last time his presence was reported , was in Bermuda where this ominous triangle appeared in the sky.
Wow, this runs! Only winners indeed: a fantastic bridge and street view by Hygge, a contorted sun from George (nice view from your workplace!), magical ripples of pink and blue by Michael and finally the delicate lines and blues by Keelin.
Haha, yes you fooled me with the achromatic chromaticity Alec.
Googling about the subject that also triggered my imagination can be informative and I learned that: “The natural center of chromaticity space is not always achromatic”. Here you are. Heavy indeed.
Great abstracts in B&W en W&B Alec to start with accompanied by Bowie. A festival indeed. Perfect symmetry.
WI wonder what you captured there. I thought about reflections in the lens but they don’t show this kind of regular rings as far as know. Very peculiar.
On the gallery I noticed the snake-picture which reminded me of this one.
Alcohol Problem?
Wow, both great starts. And yes there are always pictures not fit for the gallery but still nice to share. Not only the ones that maybe manipulated to the edge.
Hi Alec,
A lot might be already said. I noticed that Michael and George pointed out that a picture ‘au naturel’ might be an idée fixe. The brain makes an interpretation of what the eyes feed it with. The camera is just another way of interpretation of a light signal with the purpose to represent the signal the way we perceived it in reality. There are good cameras and bad cameras, analogue ones and digital ones. So there are good and bad representations of ‘au naturel’ this way and the question arises what is left of the concept ‘au naturel’. Not much, I think. Michael also mentioned the manual developing process of a picture in the analogue way that now seems to be fully represented by developing a digital RAW picture in Lightroom. It is funny to see that the question whether to photoshop or not seems to be of more relevance in the digital area than before, while the matter is not very different in both ways of making pictures, only with the footnote that digital photo shopping opens a lot more possibilities. Frans Ossing for example mentioned the enlarged moon to enhance the dramatic effect of a rising moon at the horizon. In my opinion this is more a matter of (re)composing the picture than photoshopping in the sense it is meant in this topic.
This said does not yet answer the question put forward. The answer from me is that it is a matter of taste and a matter of what you aim for.
Making the question specific in respect to the gallery, one can read the instructions for submitting a photo for the gallery. Pictures are accepted “with no more than minor adjustments to the saturation and contrast, as we do not post images that we feel are unrealistic representations of the sky”. I agree with this stating point for the gallery, but note that inheren to it is the subjectivity and the judgement of the observer and of the editor.
When I check the gallery on this statement I can see it is mostly followed, but I have also seen a few examples of too heavily photoshopped pictures to my taste. No offence I hope and no problem for me, but just observing the fact that handling the criterion is difficult.
My way of approach for the gallery is therefore to meet reality best but my experience is that one has to photoshop the picture often. For example iridescence can be overwhelming brilliant in reality but when I take a picture of this spectacle it does not seem to do favor to reality. That proofs that our eyes and brain do different things then the camera.
And then there is more than ”only” the gallery. Playing with contrasts, hues and other possibilities of photoshopping can give astonishing and beautiful results just for the fun of it. Some make art of it. It is just what purpose you have.
And now for something completely different (?)…… About achromatic chromaticity I found that “The natural center of chromaticity space is not always achromatic”. Great sentence. I am still curious about the interest you take in this subject Alec.
Hi Alec, sorry I could not react sooner, but I really like your initiative. You are right with the negative connotation with something called Not B&W. I now think it covered potentially to much. I initially felt a bit reluctant about the suggestion by Michael for a sunset / sunrise topic. Your suggestion for differentiation makes me change my mind and I like to contribute to, or even start one of these new topics.
I just saw you already started the Colour Thread Volume I. Other options are to follow as far as I am concerned. I will take some sleep on them now. To be continued tomorrow.
And I like the drift!
Thanks for the link Hygge. Very impressive visualization of a living planet. We are at risk spoiling it heavily……. Hope this kind of visualization helps to enhance awareness.
Ah, a lot to enjoy at a new pace! I have to catch up after Grus flew south and left what seem to be strange curling contrails.
What an incredible Mamma formation, Michael. It seems to have a tender back ground lighting just emphasizing the contours of each lump. And then the Christmas Shopping started yet, while here in Holland we just had our own Sinterklaas. These holidays appear to be Open To Interpretation. One thing I am certain of: Open To Interpretation is on my list, Keelin.
I don’t want to spoil the party that we look forward for, but the words by H.P Lovecraft, introduced by Alec, tolled the bells, every word of them being a harbinger of an unspeakable horror yet to come from beyond.
Hovering For Prey
Hi Alec,
Things get weird down the rabbit hole. I had the same problem yesterday with making this topic. I wanted to post it in the morning, tried it as a new topic, tried it as a reply on Heavy, tried it without pictures to start with, but nu success. Eventually I succeeded at the beginning of the evening.
Yes your answer helps. Many thanks for your opinion on this. Very clear. Unfortunately a wider view wasn’t possible and that makes definite conclusions very difficult for the lower one I understand. I am happy with the thought I saw a part of the suncave Parry. Rather rare.
So thanks again.
H
