anyone know what's going on with the gallery? it seems to have changed and now the chronological ordering has gone. or was it always this way...confused...

umm...and g does the gallery not send notifications?

the two things combined mean a discussion is almost impossible. I must be issing something obvious.

I nearly started an unofficial comp today just for fun.
I have noticed the different entrants but that's cool, I haven't noticed any difference in quality, last week's was excellent, but my comp was a bit lame, you win some, you loose some.

A whole different bunch of people use the gallery section (only), but 'we', because we talk, also use it. So it seems a good and inclusive solution to me.
My only gripe about the new gallery is the fact that the images are re-jpeged and re-sized for the display, and clearly suffer from this (you have to click on the image to see the original - I hope it's the original)

Forgot to say, I love the idea of forcing people to take pictures that week, which I strive to do, usually unsuccessfully!

I love 5, very evocative.
I would love to see more of 3 - hitting the afterburners and tearing though the clouds - perfect, but so small. Will that sublime lens of yours enable you to crop it much tighter?

I like the grass hopper josh. Lovely colours and composition.
I like very narrow DOF, keep going 'til you get those eyes in focus and you're sorted

Cool !
I like them.
Number 2 for me

I spent my Sunday fixing someone's CSS code... urrggg.

It's a tricky one isn't it? You appear to be doing all the right things and with sRGB you should be able to predict what it will look like on the vast majority of displays.
My monitor is not calibrated (shock, horror). I use empirical evidence - I always proof my prints and have printed several books, including a client's photography book, on this system. When the proofs came back they looked precisely the same as the artwork on my monitors (not brightness and contrast obviously). As a web designer, I am always looking at my manipulated images on a variety of clients' monitors.
The other bit of evidence that these monitors here are a good baseline, is that most images on this forum and elsewhere look fine...
So, somewhere between your system and a couple of other displays on this thread, the blues in particular seem to be displaying differently than you are seeing. (or you are seeing the same blue as us and you like it like that)

I'm just curious that's all, it seems to be just your images that do this to my display and I wanted to know if this is how you meant it to be.

Dan, Good to know I'm not seeing things In my first post I said to Simon that it could go through to print and look fine all the way through on his system (in which case everything is fine).
But Simon displays on web galleries (including his own) in which case a separate workflow is called for, and crucially, honest feedback from people with different systems.
If these images were taken from a print-based workflow then they would (and should) look over-sharpened and some colours in the gamut will shift into unexpected hues.
Even calibrated monitors will see colour shifts on images from other machines - it depends what they are calibrated for.
To be safe on the web then web-safe colour space is called for in PP.

I'll have a go Simon, but really, the only way to get to the bottom of this is to stand next to you and look at the same monitor.
Of the Cornwall images, the colours look good and taking the top one here -


the sea looks like typical summer sea with 'correct' colours, but the image does head towards over processed, specifically over sharpened or too much contrast (very similar). The fact that the entire image is in focus, is perhaps giving it a slightly unreal look. was it a very small aperture? I'm being super critical here, but basically the image looks fine.
My daughter (17) has just come in and when asked to view the two images side by side and give a critique, said, ' the sky looks bright - no, the sea, has it been put on afterwards?...' She said the Mullion image above looks fine.
We can only comment on these images as web images in the context of this forum, If you are using a colour space intended for something else when you are processing them, then maybe there has been a 'shift' on some of them when converted to web JPEGs. But presumably you would see the same shift.

Hmm...now I'm more curious than ever
I live by the sea so I have a good idea of the colours it can be and my monitor usually displays the images here 'properly' in as much as they look natural. Sometimes, images look over sharpened on this screen and I mostly put that down to being an LCD.
The polariser would certainly account for some of it. I need some advice about polarisers as mine almost never does anything but I'll start another thread about that
The lines I see are almost imperceptible but the chapel looks kind of like an illustration. Maybe this could be attributed to the polariser too? acting slightly like a graduated ND filter???
Incidentally, the colours in your series of shots from Cornwall look natural.

WOW

Thanks