Heavily cropped clip from D750

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 15:36:58 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

And turning up the vibrance will give (almost?) everything a green
tinge. I should have made clear I was talking about photographs of the
kind under discussion.

only what is already green.

if there was a red flower in the photo, it would not give it a green
tinge.

Unless it already had a green tinge from being lit by light reflected
from green trees.

which means it's not the vibrance control that's causing the tinge.

the vibrance control is simply enhancing (or reducing) the green that's
already there.

Nobody said otherwise.

eric did.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
I now have to say that the first image undoubtedly had an excessive
green tint. Apart from anything else, I find LR's 'Vibrance' tends to
do that.

again, that is wrong.

vibrance does not cause a green tint.

it might enhance a preexisting green tint, but it does not cause one.

You are trying to argue with what I didn't actually say. You are also
ignoring my early clarification and later explanation.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:44:26 +0100, David Taylor
wrote:

On 12/07/2015 00:08, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 13:53:40 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/10/2015 8:41 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On the banks of the Danube: about 1/3 of the original vertically and
40% horizontally.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7500487.jpg

You should be able to see a fishing line passing just over the heads
of the fisherman.


Error 404

It's now
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-7500487-1.jpg

Thanks, Eric. Over-exposed and over-saturated for my taste!

That's what everything tends to look like, particularly the grass. I'm
not used to those colours either.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Exactly. In the case under discussion the grass and the trees cast a
green ting on everything around them. Using the Vibrance control adds
to that tinge.

all it's doing is amplifying the green (or whatever other colours)
that's *already there*.

it does not in any way cause a green tint to an image.

Amplifying the green increases the green tinge already inherent in the
scene. I'm sure you know what I mean.

that's what i said.

that's not what you originally said.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

the vibrance control is simply enhancing (or reducing) the green that's
already there.

Nobody said otherwise.

eric did.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
I now have to say that the first image undoubtedly had an excessive
green tint. Apart from anything else, I find LR's 'Vibrance' tends to
do that.

again, that is wrong.

vibrance does not cause a green tint.

it might enhance a preexisting green tint, but it does not cause one.

You are trying to argue with what I didn't actually say. You are also
ignoring my early clarification and later explanation.

it is what you originally say.

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 18:55:06 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Exactly. In the case under discussion the grass and the trees cast a
green ting on everything around them. Using the Vibrance control adds
to that tinge.

all it's doing is amplifying the green (or whatever other colours)
that's *already there*.

it does not in any way cause a green tint to an image.

Amplifying the green increases the green tinge already inherent in the
scene. I'm sure you know what I mean.

that's what i said.

that's not what you originally said.

Only you seem need me to have said that I was writing about the image
under discussion.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 18:55:07 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

the vibrance control is simply enhancing (or reducing) the green that's
already there.

Nobody said otherwise.

eric did.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
I now have to say that the first image undoubtedly had an excessive
green tint. Apart from anything else, I find LR's 'Vibrance' tends to
do that.

again, that is wrong.

vibrance does not cause a green tint.

it might enhance a preexisting green tint, but it does not cause one.

You are trying to argue with what I didn't actually say. You are also
ignoring my early clarification and later explanation.

it is what you originally say.

Then you are way behind in the discussion.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 7/12/2015 6:55 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

the vibrance control is simply enhancing (or reducing) the green that's
already there.

Nobody said otherwise.

eric did.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
I now have to say that the first image undoubtedly had an excessive
green tint. Apart from anything else, I find LR's 'Vibrance' tends to
do that.

again, that is wrong.

vibrance does not cause a green tint.

it might enhance a preexisting green tint, but it does not cause one.

You are trying to argue with what I didn't actually say. You are also
ignoring my early clarification and later explanation.

it is what you originally say.


So after he clarifies what he meant, you still argue your
interpretation, obviously just to argue.


--
PeterN

On 7/12/2015 6:55 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

the vibrance control is simply enhancing (or reducing) the green that's
already there.

Nobody said otherwise.

eric did.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
I now have to say that the first image undoubtedly had an excessive
green tint. Apart from anything else, I find LR's 'Vibrance' tends to
do that.

again, that is wrong.

vibrance does not cause a green tint.

it might enhance a preexisting green tint, but it does not cause one.

You are trying to argue with what I didn't actually say. You are also
ignoring my early clarification and later explanation.

it is what you originally say.


When may we expect a response to my question about your familiarity with
some of the NECCC folks.

--
PeterN