B&W

[bnnrcn]

Thank you so much Neville, I'm glad that you liked it

A superb atmospheric monochrome Binnur. Love the threatening clouds and the suggested vulnerability of the house on the headland.

[Mike Buckley]

Binnur,

About the halos: I've never noticed any difference between the display here at CiC and my display using my editing software or my cataloging software; all three methods appear the same to me. I use TinyPic to upload my photos and the photos are at the native resolution of my monitor, which is 1920 x 1080. I know it can be frustrating to experience these issues, so feel free to PM me so you can send me your JPEG if you think that might be helpful.

As for correcting the halos, it's rarely a good idea to fix halos by cloning or blurring. Instead, erase half to all of the sharpening where the halos exist using a tiny brush that has soft edges. It's easy and works like a charm without creating any unnatural side effects.

About the house: Now that we understand the focal length you used, it's clear to me that the house is "leaning" to the left because of the perspective distortion being caused by pointing the lens upward when using such a short focal length. That distortion will only be apparent where there are strong, straight lines of objects in the scene that we know would normally be vertical. Having said that, many images are improved by a display of perspective distortion, especially when a sense of height is being conveyed. Though I'm not sure the perspective distortion improves this image, I am sure it doesn't cause any harm, at least not for me. If getting rid of the distortion causes the rest of the composition to suffer, I would leave it as is if it were mine.

[bnnrcn]

Thanks for the tip about reducing the halo by erasing half of the sharpening with a small soft brush Mike, I will give it a go tonight or tomorrow. I usually don't see much difference in my images when viewed in different softwares either. This image was a little crisp already before uploading. May be that's why the halo became stronger when uploaded. I remember once Manfred told me that the images were getting squeezed on the way because of the hosting service (or something like that I really can't remember properly). BTW no unshap mask was applied after resizing this image, instead I applied some noise reduction with values strength 2, preserve details 60, sharpen details 60, because I didn't want the image look even crisper with sharpening only.

About the distortion , may be 17 mm ( equal to 27 mm in full frame) caused some distortion but it was a hill already leaning upward towards right, I think some of the distortion came naturally.I think I like the way the house stands and I will leave it as is.

Thanks for your further explanations and tips. I appreciate it

Binnur,

About the halos: I've never noticed any difference between the display here at CiC and my display using my editing software or my cataloging software; all three methods appear the same to me. I use TinyPic to upload my photos and the photos are at the native resolution of my monitor, which is 1920 x 1080. I know it can be frustrating to experience these issues, so feel free to PM me so you can send me your JPEG if you think that might be helpful.

As for correcting the halos, it's rarely a good idea to fix halos by cloning or blurring. Instead, erase half to all of the sharpening where the halos exist using a tiny brush that has soft edges. It's easy and works like a charm without creating any unnatural side effects.

About the house: Now that we understand the focal length you used, it's clear to me that the house is "leaning" to the left because of the perspective distortion being caused by pointing the lens upward when using such a short focal length. That distortion will only be apparent where there are strong, straight lines of objects in the scene that we know would normally be vertical. Having said that, many images are improved by a display of perspective distortion, especially when a sense of height is being conveyed. Though I'm not sure the perspective distortion improves this image, I am sure it doesn't cause any harm, at least not for me. If getting rid of the distortion causes the rest of the composition to suffer, I would leave it as is if it were mine.

[mknittle]

I really like the treatment you gave this image Binnur, keep up the good work

[bnnrcn]

Thanks for the encouraging comment Mark

I really like the treatment you gave this image Binnur, keep up the good work

[Texas Dave]

Yes, I like how the structure is illuminated. It's a bit dark and the hue I'm not sure about but I like the composition in the frame. An interesting photo indeed.

[bnnrcn]

Thank you for looking and commenting David I didn't want to brighten the image very much because the image is a bit crisp with a lot of small stones and rocks, I preferred it a bit dark in order to hide them for a plainer composition. Also the contrast between the building and the hill shows up better this way.

Yes, I like how the structure is illuminated. It's a bit dark and the hue I'm not sure about but I like the composition in the frame. An interesting photo indeed.

[rpcrowe]

Really pleasing shot. I like the contrast between the stark white building and the wonderfully dramatic sky. However, it seems that the building might be tilted just a bit (probably the result of a w/a capture) and a rotation of about three degrees clockwise might make the horizontals straight...

[bnnrcn]

Thanks for looking and commenting Richard The tilted building doesn't bother me, I actually like how it looks. But I will try your suggestion to see how it works.

Really pleasing shot. I like the contrast between the stark white building and the wonderfully dramatic sky. However, it seems that the building might be tilted just a bit (probably the result of a w/a capture) and a rotation of about three degrees clockwise might make the horizontals straight...