Taking your suggestion Doug, I've posted a revised image with your
suggestion regarding gamma at the same address:
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/Pano.htm  (might need to hit the refresh
button) I also put in a line where the image had been joined. There is an
area near the motor of the yacht that needs work but the purpose of posting
the image was to obtain "photographer's" critical opinions. Not that
photographer's are my target aduence, mind you.

Whenever I have doubts about the pre-sale acceptance of one of my  images, I
post it to newsgroups and take account of what people who use cameras have
to say. In many, many instances critics of my work have been totally off
target. The most glaring example of this is  my pelicans at dusk shot on Nth
Stradbroke Island where critics were quite vocal about my "inapropriete" use
of flash... The print was a raging success sales wise.

I made a prelimnary print of this scene (not the exact one I've posted) for
opinion at the Gallery over the weekend. As a print, the requirements of
gamma (lightness/darkness) are dependent on many issues not directly related
to exposure of the scene which is why the one I posted looked "light" on a
monitor. Delicate is the word.

People "see" detail in shadow areas of a scene like this which cannot be
captured  with a camera. They also see detail in highlights past what a
camera can capture. In this case it "looked" pale but when finished with an
antique ivory frame and slightly darker matt to produce a "lightness" in the
whole picture, it looks entirely correct... Very watercolourish, you might
say. Certainly one that a lot of viewers though to be "very nice"... For a
free cup of coffee!!

I've always contended that dark decorations on a wall - such as you
suggested this picture needed and which I must say make a screen image look
"nicer", simply have too narrow a market for today's Interiour decoration
needs.

Anyway... Thanks for your civil input.

Douglas
-------------------------------
Doug Jewel wrote:

For what you are trying to demonstrate (panorama made with
images taken at substantially different times), then I guess
it's not a bad effort, although to be certain of how good
the merge is, it would be necessary to view it closer than a
low resolution internet image.

Personally though I think it is overexposed substantially.
If "_DUSK_ at wynnum creek" is the subject, then IMO the
image should portray the look of dusk, which is normally
done by underexposing slightly. As a dusk shot, the main
"subject" becomes the sky & water colours, not the boats and
trees in the background. The boats would become a supporting
subject to add interest. As your shot stands, it is a photo
of some boats, oh and hey, there is a bit of odd colour in
the sky so maybe it is dusk. A little less exposure would
add some "pop" to the water and sky colours and bring them
out as the main subject. If this means the trees go to
sillhouette, then so be it - they are a minor part of the
image. A little more cropping on the right wouldn't go
astray either.

When I first saw the shot, I wondered what was wrong with
the colour balance - it wasn't until I saw the description
"dusk at wynnum creek" that I realised it was a dusk shot. I
found by turning down my monitor brightness to the point
where I lost everything darker than 70 on your strip on your
home-page, that the image then had the pop that a dusk shot
should have (except for the big blob of bright white on the
left hand side). Note that at my normal monitor brightness I
can see every step on your test strip, so my monitor at
normal brightness should be similar to yours.

With less exposure, the shot wouldn't be too bad at all.