Slobodan, not a problem. Where I would disagree is whether it is the original file or my rendering of it that is the issue. I realize everything we see online derives from a file. But, to me, a bad file implies bad capture file. "Soft with halos" tells me bad rendering. I can accept the latter. I am looking at it on a 4K 31" and that is probably comparable to yours and John's. "...grainy and soft with nothing clearly defined," and "...the treatment is not that bad overall" seems contradictory to me. It is possible, even likely
, I am not understanding; as you know, it has happened before. What I don't understand is what the criticism is about. Is it that the file I uploaded is not as large or high quality as it could be? I get it. Is it a poor image? OK, I can understand differences in taste regarding subject selection. Is it poorly rendered? The preceding discussion would seem to be inconsistent with this possibility.
"Criticism stings" I know. You know, that I have taken plenty and as a result have been taught a bunch; I am grateful for it. I know how difficult it can be to render humor and subtlety in the written word, but without some explicit description of "bad file" I have nothing to hang my hat on.
If I am still not getting it, I gladly look forward to a new lesson. Remember years ago when you called me out on a "cyanish sky?"
As I learned from you, I can't learn from what I cannot see; I cannot see, if I don't know where to look.
Maybe this is all a misunderstanding, but I'd hate to think it is not worthwhile at some level.
Criticism stings, I know. Happens to the best and the most thick-skinned of us, whether we admit it or not.
I don't think this is about your last line. Only your best friends will tell you you're drunk and need to go lie down