RFF banner

[payasam]

The RFF banner had been troubling me for some while. A couple of days back I thought my screen was dirty, since this part of India is dusty; but it was clean. Then I ruled out reflections by switching off the lights in the room. Finally, I took a screen shot of the banner. Here it is, with gamma increased.

 

[RML]

I don't see a problem with the banner. It's been the same banner for ages. Can you explain what is troubling you?

 

[bobofish]

I quite like the banner...

Indeed, what is troubling you? It's just a picture of a leica, abstracted to a charcoal-like look, with a little tail of film double exposed on top....

 

[taffer]

I love that banner, it was a kind contribution from a fellow RFFer and designer, Phil Samhaber.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I too like the banner a lot. It was a contribution, as Oscar pointed out, from a very generous member and it's very stylish and distinctive.

Maybe you do have some dust on the screen... 🙂

 

[darkkavenger]

I love it! 🙂

 

[dcsang]

I love that banner, it was a kind contribution from a fellow RFFer and designer, Phil Samhaber.

I did not realize that Phil did that!!
That's cool 🙂

I wonder if Jorge has any banners that we could use on our own personal sites to promote RFF (not that it need promoting mind you) 😀

Dave

 

[payasam]

If many other people like the banner for aesthetic reasons and I don't, that's neither here nor there. The problem is that its background appears to be black until I look at it closely. Then I see the shades of grey. However, the greys are far too dark.

All the avatars here look fine so far as brightness and contrast are concerned, except for that of Darkkavenger (Max?), which is, perhaps eponymously, too dark. I have no trouble with pictures on other web pages either. That would suggest that my monitor's settings are correct. I check them every few days since I cannot afford to have them go hay-wire.

There's one sure way of deciding. How many people find my avatar too dark or too light?

Glad to send a few tons of dust. Also one or both of my cataracts.

 

[nomade]

Maybe u should just adjust the brightness and contrast on ur screen 😉

 

[Penguin_101]

I like it. I think it was ment to be a little dark.

 

[payasam]

Thanks, Nomade. Don't waste your time reading my post just above yours. Penguin_101, there's a considerable difference between "a little dark" and almost entirely black. I can see, in your avatar, a 45mm lens made in Japan; but in the banner there is no tonal gradation. If no one says anything about my present avatar, I shall stand by what I said at the start.

 

[RayPA]

The grey pattern is a posterized image of a rangefinder camera. If it was lighter, I think it would interfere with the site name. I think I know what you mean, however. When I first signed on here (about a year ago), I found the banner a little bothersome, as well, for some reason.

🙂

BTW, your avatar looks fine.



.

 

[Kyle]

Thanks, Nomade. Don't waste your time reading my post just above yours. Penguin_101, there's a considerable difference between "a little dark" and almost entirely black. I can see, in your avatar, a 45mm lens made in Japan; but in the banner there is no tonal gradation. If no one says anything about my present avatar, I shall stand by what I said at the start.

The banner is meant to be subtle. Is that really such a problem?

 

[RML]

I see no gradation problem of any sort on my laptop or on the screen at work. People have said the same thing about some of my photos in my gallery while others had no trouble to see gradation in the darker areas. I really think it's your screen that's giving you trouble, not the banner.

 

[payasam]

Ray, since your note on my avatar is wholly devoid of subtlety, I am able to understand it. It is not a problem. Thank you.

It must be that all the snap-shotters, photographers, photo agencies, print publications and web sites who find nothing wrong, technically, with the pictures I send them screw up their monitors' settings to match those of mine.