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.

Outstanding shot! HFF! Stay well!

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

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.

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".