Cliffs of Moher
- Widescreen 16:10
- 1920x1200
- 1680x1050
- 1440x900
- 1280x800
- Widescreen 16:9
- 1920x1080 - 1080p HDTV
- 1280x720 - 720p HDTV
- Fullscreen 4:3
- 1600x1200
- 1400x1050
- 1280x960
- 1024x768
- Fullscreen 5:4
- 1280x1024
- iPhone
- 320x480
- BlackBerry
- 320x240
- Other
- 480x272
No match
Taken on the West coast of Ireland in September, 2009. Shot with a Canon PowerShot A570 IS.
About the photo
Canon PowerShot A570 IS.
Related wallpapers
Comments (34)
-
Nikki0728
Awesome pic,thanks for sharing!
-
peter93
thats pretty good for a point and shoot! i have a powershot sx10 is. point and shoot cameras can be good sometimes ;)
-
slashbomb123
a long show w/ a bit of high angle, i think the cliff is pretty cool
-
@caneveryonepleasebenice, I think that just before the Loupe was introduced the IFL admins said it would not be the only factor when determining which submissions make it, so I'm sure they still choose their own favorites. Besides, people complained about the lack of variety before the Loupe so nothing's really changed.
-
artist-53535
Hey guys...I took the liberty to 'fix' some of the colors in this photo...let me know what you guys think... Here is the link: http://www.mediafire.com/file/znygzjm4ilj/02030_cliffsofmoher_1920x1200.jpg
-
caneveryonepleasebenice
OK the summary for this image is: It's a nice scene, nice bright colours to cheer anyone up who's feeling somewhat down sitting in front of their computers. BUT The quality of the image is underpar - too many compression artefacts and what looks like over-done noise reduction on the camera's part means there's a loss of detail/sharpness with the cliff face. SO - @Paulevermore - you should keep your dSLR. I think the loupe has seen a decline in standards. But part of this is due to the inability to see a full-size image and also mediocrity that is endemic to the majority of the voting public. And yes, because it's the public voting, there is only ever one or two types of images that will be voted. Anything different, anything that isn't brightly coloured etc, probably won't be voted for. Perhaps IFL moderators can "vote", where perhaps their vote counts for a little more - ie, they can vote for images that they might normally have accepted, whilst the rest of the public votes for their sunsets. Therefore, sunsets (an example) will have to be REALLY good that a LOT of people vote for, vs other interesting shots that IFL think are decent, and that a few others vote for... Cheers
-
I agree that receiving criticism on your photos is helpful, but when did this become the place for it? Most people who put their photos up here don't ask- and probably don't want- their photo critiqued and sometimes insulted in front of everyone. Maybe IF should offer a "Criticism welcome" check box on the submission area.
-
WhiteDog
It's not easy to say if the problems with this photo are a result of the camera used to capture it or the post-processing applied to it. I agree, though, that the contrast is too high, as is the color saturation. And I venture to guess the image was not taken in RAW, due to the absence of both shadow and highlight detail. You don't need HDR to bring out details in a picture; a run through any decent app that can handle RAW images (if this were ever in RAW) could have done much to improve it. You don't need high-end software either, these days. Photoshop Elements and even iPhoto can do a lot with RAW. As for how this image got up on IFL, well, people voted for it didn't they? Isn't that how it works?
-
I know this place. It is very beautiful! Despite finding several images similar to this one on the internet, I liked that. I think it has a little more than trivial. Bonnie D., thank you for showing us your work. NateFox, I agree. With this change the picture in Photoshop is better. Some people still have to learn and live with differences. It's almost suggesting that we should only complimentary comments, and never a criticism. The criticism is more constructive than a compliment, in my opinion. But that does not make me the "Lord of reason."
-
Geosim
You see, this is why I try not to comment on most submissions. Time and again people take constructive criticism as a personal attack, but this clearly isn't the intention, and I end up having to defend my comments when they were only meant to be taken as advise to follow or pitfalls to avoid in the future. The downside of of everyone 'lightening up', which seems to mean only posting meaningless positive comments, is that people won't get any better, and inevitably the quality of submissions will start to go down if everything posted on the site is regarded as 'excellent' or some other superlative praise placed upon subjectively average work. Maybe we could have a separate section for those that just want to comment on the submission, and a separate are for constructive criticism, as clearly the two don't seem to go hand in hand on this site and may prevent problems like this arising in the future. And Paul, if you took my comment as rude then I can only apologise. I did half wonder whether your comment was serious, but as always you can never tell on the Internet. Anyway, the benefits of DSLRs that I alluded to weren't just in the pure IQ stakes for pixel peepers, but in terms of versatility, low light capabilities etc. Just because a compact can shoot in RAW doesn't mean it can go toe-to-toe with a DSLR. Anyway, I don't want to get drawn into a DSLR vs. compact debate so I'll stop there. In hindsight I wouldn't have posted that comment, but nevermind.
-
niftydrumdude
I'm on paulevermore's side here, I actually lol'd when I saw his first comment, and somewhat agreed with him (sadly). If 3/4 of IFL commenters were more down to earth, the amount of comments on each image would probably triple (due to rookies not being afraid of being promptly shot down). Maybe we should all just lighten up a bit...?
-
@Geoism I see you are another critic with nothing to show on the loupe. I guess your forté is being rude.
-
@Geoism Well aren't you a snob. It was an off hand non-serious comment for the benefit of the artist. Admittedly my comment was made before the photo was available full view. But it is also true that compacts are improving day by day. And with CHDK allowing Canon users to shoot RAW on their compacts, daylight images like this could become indestinguishable from those taken with SLRs.
-
T
I agree with Geosim... it's a pleasant enough scene but it's a bit flat - I guess because the green in the foreground is exactly the same shade as that in the distance - and therefore it lacks the depth of field that a good scenery photograph needs. I also agree about the graininess of the sky - it seems like the camera wasn't really set up right (can Powershots do RAW images?). The composition of the picture doesn't really abide by the normal rules (i.e. rule of thirds). Let me stress, it's not offensive in any way. It just seems to me that it doesn't really meet IFL's normal high standards. Mind you, since the Loupe came along, it seems that standards have been dropping a little anyway. Also given the Loupe is an apparent 'democratic' process, the pictures selected will always tend towards a particular type, which rather leaves the other good images that only appeal to smaller numbers of people (i.e. subject matter that isn't to the majority's tastes) out in the cold. I do hope the editors of the site will still bypass the Loupe for some pictures to keep up the variety.
-
Geosim
@paulevermore- I agree. If you can't see the benefits of having a DSLR over a compact, then you probably shouldn't be using one at all. @Clyde - I think you'll find this photo is actually over saturated more than a lot of other submissions on IFL. Maybe you can't see it on your monitor, but on a decent quality screen the colours just don't look right. In particular the contrast has been increased far to much; the sea looks far too dark, almost black in the foreground, while the whites look blown out and lack detail. However, I'm not saying it's a bad photo, it's just not an especially good one, probably the average sort of snap you'd take on a holiday.
-
Ezoxu
beautiful! one more think... I have an image(s) that are higher then 1920x1200. I use Microsoft Office Picture management to edit to 1920x1200. But when I try to upload to ifl it says its too bigÂ… :S What is the best program for editing an image to this size 1920x1200 or any. Appreciate any ones help! Thank you And sorry for hijacking!
-
Iraimbilanja
Clyde, trivial was just a mild way of saying it's a bad photo. The problem is mostly the bad quality (especially the rocks). The scene is nice, and the angle is nice, but the quality kills it. The colors are also good, the green balances with the blue and grey, but could be better. So yeah, you could say it's because of the Canon Powershot ;)
-
Clyde
Wtf is a "trivial" photo ? It has excellent composition and just the right amount of enhancement. Is it because it isn't HDR'd or over saturated to the usual insane levels on here ? Or is it because they took the pic with a Canon Powershot :)
-
lerch84
I downloaded it, but there's something that doesn't convince me..I think this is a trivial photo..and its quality is not so high..yes, it's a nice pic but in my opinion it's not up to IFL standard.
-
NateFox
Just a lil' bit of the blur tool in photoshop will help the grain, mates:) cheers