The Huddersfield Narrow Canal at Uppermill

Similar weather to Queen's Lane.

Has the place its own micro-climate?

Annoyingly, the sun was shining brightly yesterday morning and went in just minutes before I arrived in Uppermill, and it remained dull and miserable for the rest of the day. Tuesday, Wednesday and today (when I gave up and drove straight home), it didn't stop raining or drizzling for a minute. Even if, photographically, 2022 ended with a whimper rather than a bang, it still broke all records with 272 new pictures in 12 months.

You tell me! It only seems to occur when you're there!

This would have looked better with Roy's suggested crop, but even so, the effect (preset, colour balance, or whatever term I'm suposed to use) is, dare I say it, rather dingy. But no doubt you'll tell me it's "as was".

The world I live in does tend to look a bit "dingy" at 3:30 pm on overcast December days. I'd love to see how this same scene would have looked in yours. If it were as bright, contrasty and colourful as on a sunny Summer noon, to me it would look artificial.

This is the only December stone bridge I've found so far, taken with my little 4mp.

That's very nice, but it clearly wasn't taken under a grey sky. Regardless of the time of year or day, whether a picture is taken when the sun is shining or under deep cloud cover makes a major difference to how bright and colourful that picture will look, a much greater difference than any preset in post-processing can make.

This was taken under a cloudy November sky.



But the fact is that I never mentioned anything about "bright and colourful".
I was talking about what I call 'the dingy effect' (not knowing the proper term).
Perhaps it has something to do with too much shadow?

"Too much shadow" does not apply here, because like any picture taken under an overcast sky, everything in it is in shadow.

We will be forever at cross purposes with this alleged "dingy effect" because (on my monitors and iPhone, and to my eye) there is nothing "dingy" about the effect of tonemapping and enhancement on these types of picture. In fact your second picture, above, would be both technically better and more pleasing if tonemapped to darken and better render the detail in the sky, stonework and water, and to increase the detail contrast and colour in the boats and under-arch areas.

When I said "too much shadow", I wasn't commenting on the weather, but the shadow on the enhancement or whatever you call it (don't nitpick me about the words, as you know I have no technical knowledge whatsoever). You mention the darkening of details on tonemapping. So perhaps that is what's producing the 'dingy effect'.

I challenge you to carry out your suggestions for my lower picture and let's see what happens.

There is no 'shadow' on the enhancement. All of the foreground (regardless of enhancement or none) is in shadow, there having been no sun. Tonemapping does not darken all details; it darkens the lightest and lightens the darkest tones to bring them into the range which a monitor can display, and spaces out the tones in between to provide more contrast where needed.

I cannot tonemap your picture because it isn't a RAW file, and in the .jpg produced by your camera, the lighter tones have been overexposed and the detail in them lost.

I've done as much as can be done with a screen capture of your .jpg file and have emailed it to you.

Removing the blue rope and making the monotonous expanse of water look less like tinned pea soup has helped.

You've made a fair effort, though the water looks rather drab. I prefer the pea soup colour, as this was a flood and did look rather like that. The "monotonous expanse of water" is the main point of the picture, to show the treacherous conditions, and, whether overexposed or not, the colour blends nicely with the soft colour of the bridge and the yellow leaves.

What I definitely don't like about your version is the way you've lightened the dark spaces under the arches and enhanced the view on the other side. In this instance, we're not interested in such details (which add visual confusion) but simply the boats lying helpless in the swollen river. I also dislike the mauvish sky, which I've noticed on several of your own photos.

You've managed to produce the 'dingy effect' in the stonework beneath the arches, so I think we can safely say that this effect on your own photos is the result of your tonemapping or equivalent. This supports my longheld belief that your pictures might look better if you didn't interfere with them quite so much.

Outstanding shot! HFF! Stay well!

Admired in: www.ipernity.com/group/tolerance

On what looks better, we do and must continue to agree to differ.

But regardless of colour, if the point of the picture is the swollenness of the river (to me, the interest here is mainly in the area under the arches) this needs to be emphasised more by increasing the contrast of the water to create a better impression of movement and flow.

Also, although it cannot be remedied by post processing or any other means, the composition suffers from what many of my pictures are criticised for, namely that with the two spans, the eye is led in two directions.

The composition isn't suffering at all and is quite happy "as was".

If it's all right for the eye to find its own way round a picture (as I myself have always maintained) I am fine with it. But with my pictures, an opposing view is often expressed by others.

So why criticise what you're fine with?

Out of deference to the opinion of others, my having been given to understand that what was of paramount importance in a composition was where in it the eye is led, and that must be to one part only.

Perhaps you need to free yourself from your devotion to rules and think more of aesthetics.

Free myself from my devotion to other people's rules, certainly, and judge according to my aesthetics.

You're arguing round in circles here. You criticised my composition out of deference to other people's rules, but now you're claiming to be judging it by your aesthetics, even though you said you were fine with it... I'm beginning to think E was right when he said you were potty.

Deference to your rules was what I meant, in particular the one about where in the picture the eye must be led, and am fine about not having to defer to it, since, evidently, it applies to my pictures only.

And I was also underlining the point that there is more than one set of aesthetics which we all necessarily share.

I don't have any rules for photography, as you should well know by now.

If I complain about your composition being off (which is so often the case), it's because it doesn't form a whole picture that is comfortable to look at. You then want to know the reason, and I endeavour to explain to the best of my ability (e.g. it's leading my eye to the wrong place). That is not a RULE and not something you have to apply arbitrarily to every photo you see, even when it's one that you like.

A rule, by definition, is mandatory and not applied arbitrarily. If it isn't a rule, any criticism of my pictures can likewise be dismissed by saying: "The composition isn't suffering at all and is quite happy 'as is'".

Goodness, you even have rules about rules! I'm sorry if I used the wrong word, not being as linguistically able as yourself. What I am trying to say is that you do not have to apply the same criticism to every photo that you see. Similarly, you are quite at liberty to say your composition isn't suffering, even if it's crap. I hope you have a less pedantic happy new year.

And you likewise are quite at liberty to say that your compositions aren't suffering, even if they're crap - as you do in fact do. And a happy New Year to you too.

You're quite at liberty to criticise my compositions. I don't mind that at all. But what baffles me is how you can say that my composition is "suffering" from something, whilst at the same time saying that you're "fine" with it. This leads me to think that you're converting criticism into rules and then applying those 'rules' just for the sake of it.

Here's another example where you do this to a picture where you find nothing wrong. www.ipernity.com/doc/isisbridge/24878241

Because that "something" is the criterion that the eye must must be led to a certain part of the picture only, which you subscribe to and often apply to my pictures.

What I am saying (and I think that I expressed myself clearly enough) is that since you do not apply this criterion to your own picture, declaring it to be "quite happy as is", I too need not apply this criterion, and am "fine" with that.

No, you're still thinking in rules rather than aesthetics.
I don't apply criteria to pictures, be they yours or mine.

One of these days I'll think in aesthetics about some of your pictures.

What's happening about your foot?

Isn't that something you do anyway, when you tell me that I need to lighten this and darken that and even move boats and buses? My foot is still the same and I've not heard from the clinic yet. Nor has October's hospital appointment been rescheduled.

Thanks to you, I have just woken from a dream where my neighbours had taken over my old back garden and were in the process of replacing the blue washing line, though they did 'kindly' say I could hang my stuff there when they weren't using it.

Perhaps (if the wonky foot isn't preventing it) you should go out. I'm stuck at home, but the sun is shining brightly. Nice if it had been on Christmas Eve or over Twixmas; if it had, my pictures wouldn't be dingy.

If it weren't for me, you're saying, you wouldn't have woken from it? How nice it is to be thanked, occasionally.

Perhaps the dream was allegorical, and the thin blue line was the one that's supposed to protect us from crime.

The blue line was the one you removed from my flood photo and which my brain subconsciously recognised as a similar colour to that used by a certain council for their washing lines.

At the start of my dream, I was telling someone how there used to be a blue line across my garden, which had now disappeared. Then I noticed a coil of bright blue rope on the ground, and my neighbours came out and began rigging up their washing lines on my side of the fence, and I couldn't complain, because I didn't live there anymore.

That it was that is what I'd assumed. Sorry to have over-stimulated your subconscious.

I've just ordered a rechargeable vacuum cleaner which will I hope encourage me to clean my floors more often.

You seem to have made some good resolutions.

I think the picture is fine"as is" but I would of course.

Thanks very much. In a perfect life there would have been a touch more sun on the bridge and foreground, but (even if I say so myself) compositionally and tonally this is the best that could be done under the existing lighting conditions and the image is satisfactory.

Have you seen the picture "as is"? Because very few of Howard's pictures are!
I prefer "as is" pictures too.

Er, no. John is saying that he likes the picture 'as is' (after any digital enhancement it might have received), not the original scene as it might have appeared.

As pointed out before, no photograph is ever a literal and exact facsimile of what is seen by the eye, because of the very nature of the photographic process. As explained, a certain amount of tonemapping can make the end result look closer to what the eye saw than a plain camera-generated .jpg which you assume always to be the most accurate and realistic representation of any scene.

Are you now John's spokesman? He did say in a previous comment that he likes pictures
"as seen" imperfections and all that makes a proper picture not a manufactured one".

I'm inclined to agree with him, although I have no objection to cloning out unwanted features.

If that's so, then he and I must agree to differ on what is a "proper picture".