Depends on if your using a color managed browser or not. My systems is fully calibrated and I have a 3800. 120 Lumens sounds more like a contrast problem maybe then a brightness problem.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 6:46 PM, YGelmanPhoto <ygelmanphoto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ah, I now understand Andrew's photo -- and also why I didn't before. My laptop screen didn't show any distinction between the poles, the top of the poles, and the dark image of the land in the background. So, on my screen the top was all a confused silhouette. I might have realized something like that was going on because the vignetting in the sky in my image on my screen was also too dark.
I have my laptop calibrated so that what I see in Photoshop matches what comes out of my printer -- I had to make it darker to match my printer's output (Epson 3800). And I read that's the usual problem with laptops. But why should screen images from RIT be dark??? Is it just me?. . .or my bed? :-) .
-yoram
On Mar 18, 2013, at 6:40 PM, asharpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Thanks for your careful analysis of the photograph, David. In fact, I
> don't know what the purpose of the poles are, nor of the connecting
> members. I took the image because I liked how it appeared that the poles
> were holding up the land, even though they themselves appeared to be
> unsupported, lending a rather ambiguous feeling to the scene.
>
> And thank you to both Trevor and Yoram; your feedback is absolutely
> appreciated, and always will be, regardless of what that feedback might
> be.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On Sun, March 17, 2013 12:19 pm, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> On 2013-03-16 23:51, YGelmanPhoto wrote:
>>
>>> This week's collection is much more eclectic than usual -- probably due
>>> to the scramble to get something in after being told than Nothing was
>>> in the pot! Anyway, here's my take. -yoram
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Sharpe - Bixby Park, Palo Alto, California
>>>>
>>> I don't understand what I'm looking at.
>>>
>>
>> Is that good or bad?
>>
>>
>> We're clearly looking at a watercourse, heading off into the distance
>> left (and you can see a bit of the next turn right in the upper right
>> corner of the land area). We're clearly looking at reflections of poles
>> coming up out of the water. The horizontal members must be essentially on
>> the surface of the water, since we see no separate reflections of them.
>> (We can verify the bottom pole images are reflections since
>> they're slightly modulated by the small ripples on the water.) Possibly
>> they form some sort of dam (perhaps the water beyond them is lower than
>> the water on our side of them; no way to tell from the photo that I've
>> thought of), or perhaps they're to limit the spread of the driftwood we
>> see floating in a number of places on our side of it, or perhaps it's
>> something else entirely. Is the image about the real-world purpose of
>> what we're seeing, or it it about itself?
>>
>> And after looking at your next four, I see you got out of bed on the
>> wrong side that morning :-).
>> --___
>> David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/
>> Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
>> Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
>> Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
>>
>>
>>
>
ygelmanphoto@xxxxxxxxx
www.ygelmanphoto.com
