Wrong. In the case of pigments, for instance, the pigment already had color. But in this case, the color is produced just by the arrangement of reflectors, with each reflector itself reflecting exactly the light incident on it. The combined light from all the reflectors produces the color.

I looked him up in Wikipedia: among other work in piezoelectricity, “Lippmann is remembered as the inventor of a method for reproducing colours by photography, based on the interference phenomenon, which earned him the Nobel Prize in Physics for 1908.”

My comment above implied interference between beams/waves from adjacent-but-separated sources.

Very interesting. Thanks again.

Not only insects, but bird feathers too show colors when the strands are properly connected to each other.

I guess that diffraction and/or reflection from tightly packed sources produces the effect. Different frequencies react differently -- but I can't fully explain it. Ting Xu's example is stunningly beautiful, more so because of the technique. Thanks for this.

Did you try saying "period" ? I know that Siri responds to that by inserting a period (duh!). Maybe other punctuation as well. (I actually don't use it myself but I've seen others using it.)

What printer do you have? Are Ink Tanks available for P5000 Epson???

Our trip was from Bergen to Kirkenes and back. You will stop at different spots on the way back so there is no repetition. That's nicer than flying back from Kirkenes. And we stayed in Bergen for two days after the trip.

I recommend getting off the boat whenever you can, even if it's just to walk around the place -- and have a beer at a dockside tap. There are many excursions offered; all cost plenty and some aren't really worth it (such as the packed speedboats to look at the whirlpools). The eagle feeding excursion was worth it.

You'll get plenty of sleep, with lots of photography. You will be tempted to take way too many shots; on the other hand you can always delete them. But think before you press the shutter.

Take plenty of soap in addition to your camera. You'll find subtle but excessive brain washing all the time. Counter terrorism? -- ask Amnesty International. They finally reported that Israel is an apartheid state; of course Israel said, "Who? Us?"

Well, of course you'll keep the detail in mind when you return for the followup shot. Right?

I don't know if there is more detail in the underside of the arch; the image you sent doesn't show any details, but it needs them. Not a lot -- that would be distracting -- but some detail would show context. Without it, the dark, curved mass takes away the impact of the remarkable distant structure. In other words, perhaps, showing that the arch is part of the complex adds to the scale of the structure.

You noticed the scale. . . that's why you took the shot. So make the image match your feeling.

John N,

It occurs to me that the church elders would be pleased to accept the photograph for their own purposes -- for free, of course. I give permission to take my reworking if you want to go that route.

For the purposes of noir the image is appropriate. But otherwise, I did about 15 minutes of luminosity adjusting to get a more wholesome feel. Probably still not to all tastes, of course. The church still stands out and the composition is also good.

I agree that we should rarely use someone else's presets as final. That said, however, it might be much faster -- especially for beginners to adjustments -- to flip through presets and find one that is close to some desired effect/style. Then use adjustments toward the final image.

Of course that doesn't help a newbie learn how to create that preset.

Well, with apologies if I'm intruding, I saw some interesting aspects of this image, of the wall opposite to that of your original image.

There is a diagonal from the catch basin on the lower right going up to the drain gutter at the upper left, going right past the window through which we see the window on the other side of the building which is offset from the near window. Talk about direction, wow. And to top it off, there is the drain at the upper right -- which to me acts like a punctum (look it up) against the rest off the image. The only thing that I thought might be a problem was that the window is too small, so I blew it up a little. And although I liked the plant at the bottom at first, I thought it is distracting so I took it out. If it were my own image, I would test other possibilities -- maybe cropping less. Your b/w treatment would be good if this side of the building had sunlight on it. Anyway, here is what I did, again with apologies if you object to my messing a little with your image.

Nice use of b/w, tones and contrast. This could be very good.
But the composition, to me, is static; there is no direction. Could you have included more of the steps in the lower left? Or used some of the overhanging timbers for framing? If you have a wider shot of this wall, it would be interesting to see -- but not to make the shot too busy.

Did you download them from your camera, or from a chip? I can't imagine they'd go to Microsoft Photos if you used the chip.