You are invited to upload one or more of your landscape photos and, if you’d like, to accompany your image with some commentary: challenges you faced in making the image? your intent for the image? settings? post-processing decisions? why you did what you did? the place and time? or an aspect you’d like feedback on? And please feel free to ask questions of others who have posted images or to join the discussion. If you don’t feel like using words, that’s OK too—unaccompanied images (or unaccompanied words, for that matter) are also very much welcomed. As for the technicalities, the usual forum guidelines apply: files < 1 MB; image size <1000 px maximum dimension. My apologies for posting the thread late, but for some reason I wasn’t able to access Photonet earlier this morning. Anyway, my travails with motion blur in the photo of the wave from last week got me thinking once again about Dieter Schaefer’s very interesting comment from the 8 August thread: he noted that when photographing waterfalls, he likes to use a shutter speed (1/8 to 1/250) that provides an amount of motion blur that’s consistent with what the eye sees—not ethereally blurry, and not clinically sharp. I started thinking about the situations in which I try to push the envelope to the extremes, and came up with this one for the clinically sharp end of the range (1/1000). For me, this scene called for an almost-over-sharp treatment in part because it shows me things I couldn’t have seen on my own, and that bumps the scene several steps away from my experience of reality. In that sense, I think the hyper-sharp treatment introduces an odd element of abstraction here.