> >> I don't know about the "image managed" in PS bit either. All three > >> channels seem a bit dark - the histogram showing virtually no use of > >> RGB values 210-255 in any channel. Being dark overall, the very dark > >> bottom right corner becomes even more of a flaw. > > I guess the term I used is misleading. I just did not want to say > "manipulated" - which is probably what I did. Anyway, after the pattern in > the wood appeared on the screen out of the camera I decided I liked it on the > dark side rather than as it was. Andy The reason I looked at the histograms at all is because it looked too dark: I wanted to confirm if it was rather than being the monitor I was viewing it on. I don't know about Mac vs PC but I've seen my images on other PCs and they have looked awful - too dark, too light, too saturated, too washed out. I've started to believe that we really don't know if what we see is what the author thought they were showing us. ;o) For yours, the story of the histograms is clear: the image is deficient of pixels leaning towards the light point. On my monitor (well, the one I was using) the image was unsatisfactorily dark, somewhat Basil Faulty even. As to the format: my next monitor will swivel (swing both ways) so I will be able to tackle your work straight up. Bob
