Trappers Wilderness Area

Please note the following:

• This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.
• Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum.
• The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
• Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.

I have to admit that I am totally confused. I can't find this image in Brian's photostream nor the ones around it (hitting the arrows here)--like there is a phantom photo stream out there or something.

Anyway, I am not a big fan of this sort of image, but I think this is well done for the genre. It is just a bit too candied up for me in the processing, but I am sure it will be popular with many. There is nice depth to the image and overall, a very nice scene. I do find the encroaching flowers along the right lower edge a little distracting and would probably have eliminated them myself--and might have tidied up a little on the left a bit as well--but how much or even if is sort of a trial and error thing. Maybe just some toning down would do it.

For me, the weak link of the image is just that the sky is not much of a payoff. It is a bit bare and over saturated (banded as well) but maybe it goes with the territory. But then, I am now wondering about whether this is a composite image or not.

I didn't start out to play detective, but when I went looking for this image in the photostream, I did find this image, which seemed very similar. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9412654 In fact, the shadows on the far peaks, cloud and terrain shadows, are an exact match as in this photo, however the sky is totally different. This is not a phenomenon that would happen in nature I am afraid. I will say, that there is a good chance that this sky does belong to this shot while my guess is that the other sky was added to that shot, only because this cloud and the shadow seem more plausible than for the other sky. But I am not totally convinced that there has not been some other work done here--in the flowers.

Bottom line, a nice image overall, but maybe a little over done for my tastes.

John -- Brian submitted this photo above: "Trappers", for critique on Aug. 15, 2008.
I do admit and agree it's very candy-colored but excellent in its infinite DOF with beautiful flowers obviously.

A strong image as far as subject, aesthetics, and capture. A beautiful place captured in a way that makes you want to be there. Does have some things going against it IMO.
1. Blue cast, the white balance is off. Clouds are not nuetral, but blue heavy by 8 to 10 rgb values
2. Flowers cutting out of lower right edge
3. One wispy cloud isn't doing too much for me
4. Sky is too cyan. Needs more red. Also somewhat heavy banding in sky.
5. Too saturated overall.

John A makes an astute observation. One of these two photos has had the sky replaced in Photoshop, and neither one of them alerts the viewer to that fact, which ruins it for me.

I like the composition a lot. The position of the cloud, the valley between the mountains, and the arrangement of the flowers, especially the closest ones, all get high marks. Very thoughtful and well-conceived.

The distraction for me is the almost fluorescent tonality of the flowers. They look a little over-processed. The foreground and background almost look as though they were spliced together as the lighting/saturation level doesn't match. I like the lighting in the background much better. It looks more natural.

The enhanced color saturation reminds me of postcard pics of the 70's.
It seems that enhanced saturation and desaturation (previous POW) is all the rage. Mind you in the previous POW it was artificially lit.

I don't think I've ever seen a scene like this except in my minds eye. It's too artificial for my taste. Still a nice pic.

For me, this image has all the ingredients of an attractive landscape, and the composition binds those elements together with obvious photographic craftsmanship. At the same time, however, it's a landscape that conforms very much to the expectations of the genre. It's very similar to many other good photos of this kind that are on display in photo.net and elsewhere. Yet even though I would be happy to achieve the same picture-perfect beauty myself, I still think it falls short of the ultimate step that leads to real difference, to originality, to uniqueness. I see a nice scene, but somehow the flash of personality is missing. I feel the present photo is a fine exercise in photographic skill, but it doesn't lead me onto more exciting terrain.

The sky in the second version John pointed us toward has had the sky swapped out. This image above has its original sky. The shape of those two clouds are mirrored on the landscape and the sun is shining. In the second version the sky is overcast yet the sun is still casting that same strong shadow of those two clouds ( big one, little one ) from the original version. There are also some discrepancies regarding the flowers in the foreground, at the very least I believe some cloning has been done. None of this has any impact on my opinion of the photo nor do I feel that the photographer had an obligation to announce to the viewer any of the PP work done on this image. This photo has not been represented in the details section as un-manipulated.
I tend to judge an image on its merits regardless of the degree of manipulation. In this case the image is a success within the confines of the currently trendy approach to landscape photography. The lens is nice and wide, the colours are suitable oversaturated into the realm of bad LSD and we have flowers in the foreground and water and mountains in the background. The recipe has been followed with precision and competences by someone who clearly understands what is expected of this genre at this point in time and knows how to get it, that in itself is an achievement. Minus the banding and a few other PP missteps a large print of this would no doubt fetch a chorus of applause and a few bucks too.

I really like the colours and they appealing too nice to the eyes.The composition and view point are the other possitive points,here.Good camera angle,too.
Regards(Bobby).

I tend to agree with Gordon, that an image being manipulated or not isn't really a factor in its aesthetic value. For me, I think my feeling, and maybe due to the colors, was that something was amiss here--just not real. I do think this cloud is right for the image just as both Gordon and I suggested above, it fits with the shadows there--and it isn't the type of sky someone would normally add.

The primary change to the image is the elimination of the green margin between the red flowers and the blue ones. (red flowers still line up in the landscape identically and the angle of view into the blue is also the same) Comparing the images, they, the blue flowers, seem to have been somewhat skewed in the process and maybe that is what my eyes are not comfortable with and gave me that unreal feeling upon first look.

Anyway, it is a nice image for what it is--but points out why posting versions isn't always a good idea--maybe it never is.....

I like the image. Some nature photographers would frown on any photoshopping, but I feel it's acceptable as long as the photographer hides his theater. However, having a similar image with a different sky in ones portfolio is not exactly being low key about it and leads one to suspect the entire image may be contrived. It is a bit murky in the lower left but overall the feeling of depth is nice and the poppy color will certainly please many.

it is subjective and very hard to decide whether a photo is original or not. this one indeed is not as surprisingly original, nor totally lack of it, somewhere in between.
it is beautiful scenery and very well presented, much above an average landscape shot, one can feel the great sense of aesthetics and art. i agree that the colors are a bit overdone (especially the sky under the cloud), and i think this was the price to get a very good looking photo in these average light conditions. a better light would result a better picture, in my opinion this is the weak point of this photo.
all in all a quality photo, very good.

This photo is pretty and would be even prettier, in my opinion, without the black border. But it doesn't excite me. As to whether or not or how much it's been PhotoShopped, I am so curious about why anyone cares about that with respect to THIS Photo of the Week when, with 35+ comments about the fantastic job the photographer did with the lighting on last week's, no one seemed to care. That one was also not checked off as not manipulated. PhotoNet, we apparently don't understand each other.

Alberta, I for one questioned the lighting on last week's POTW. I don't think any photo should be allowed on PN without specifying whether it's manipulated or not, period, and especially not the photo of the week. It makes a mockery of the whole process of evaluating each others photos. This could have been created in Bryce or Vue (3D natural environment modeling software) for all we know.

Alberta, landscape photographers and photographers who shoot children as corpses in stairwells by window light are held accountable to differing standards as regards photo-shopping.... or something like that .... or not..... or .....never mind I haven't a clue about how this place operates.

It is probably way too early in the week to start talking about what manipulation is or when or what is acceptable or not. Brett, even your comments above, regarding color balance, cyan in the sky and such are manipulations--the corrections that is, as is the camera itself as a mediary. Other than some desaturation, which might have been done in camera by setting the rendering to neutral, I didn't see any manipulation in last weeks image. Here, there is some physical change, but the overall blue is actually more representative of what exists in Alpine regions than "correct" white balance. The discussion about manipulation always breaks down because everyone has a different line as to where or what constitutes offending manipulation and what is just normal photographic practice. If I clone out a beer can, is that manipulation but my picking it up before I shoot not? Is knocking down or removing an intruding element manipulation? I don't think I have ever been in a discussion where there is any agreement on what is or isn't manipulation in an image--offending manipulation anyway.

Certainly, composite images or moving around major elements in an image could probably be an agreed upon revelatory act, but then people would have to fess up--or remember not to post versions for comparison. But since the major photographic works popular in the art world today consist of these things, I am not sure why it matters to the quality of the image--but then we do know those are manipulated in those ways(from reading, they don't come with red flags when viewing them in museums and such!)

I've spent an awful of time photographing in Alpine environments all around the world and this heavy cyan is not at all natural of any alpine environments from my experience.

We are on Photo.net and Photo.net has a definition for manipulation. All of these theoreticals are not necessary as the parameters are already defined for people posting on this site.

I was talking about the overall blue you mentioned. In shade it is blue at sea level-everyone knows that just from the WB selection for shade which gives a strong warming effect. In Alpine regions it can require an 85b at times to bring it back to neutral. So, for me, the foreground blueness reads fine. The mountains might seem a bit cool as to preference, but it doesn't read out of normal bounds to me for this time of day and the cloud looks fine on my monitor. The cyan in the sky is sometimes a result of just shooting digitally. Problem is, here, there is already a band of magenta between the lower sky and the upper sky, adding red will exacerbate the issue. It is not an easy fix, generally requiring desaturation and/or other corrections. Color balance is sort of a preferential thing and can be as much a part of the communication as the composition--all manipulations....

Just read the definition of manipulated and unmanipulated, that could be a discussion itself--what about lens vignetting and several raw processors that remove it? Sort of begs the question re dodging and burning....

I agree with many others who have posted already, that while the shot is not highly unique or original, it is masterfully executed both in-camera and in-post. I see what John A is saying about the transition from the blue foreground flowers to the purple ones towards the middle and the shift in the greens at the same point, but I rather like what you have done here. I also very much appreciate the opportunity to see another version of the shot as I am just a learner and PS is still a major mystery to me in many ways.

I don't think that the color is overdone at all in the fore and middle ground. In the right light, alpine flowers can become flourescent like this, I have seen it many times but never succeeded in capturing that effect in the same way as Brian has here.

I do however have issue with the sky color. I find it distracting and feel that it is the only element of the image that makes me question its "authenticity".

I was going to write a serious response about the importance of critiquing with as much information about the photo and the process of its making but I'm laughing too hard at Gordon's reply :)

I think it's important to judge an image within the context of a photographer's portfolio. That is, to understand better how the image relates to the artist's point of view, way of seeing, subject matter, etc. Clearly, Brian manipulates color and light a great deal in many of his images. His approach is not literal and he is not a simple documentary landscape photographer (like myself). To me, this image is somewhat recognizable as a "Brian Goodman" and for that reason, it is a good image. I would agree with the sentiment expressed by Zsolt though that other images in Brian's portfolio are much stronger than this one simply because the light here is only ordinary. There is also the question of photographic trickery here as well. As all experienced landscape photographers know, there are tricks we can use to make viewers stop and look at our images. For instance, red anything, super-wide angle, shove something in the foreground, overdo the post-processing, soft-water, reflections, etc., are all part of the bag of tricks. For me the wide-angle, shove something in the foreground trick just comes off as too obvious here. But many thanks to the POW thread for helping to advertise another great landscape photographer on pnet. Best, JJ

Wow, just happened to get on line to move some shots around, and I saw this. Certainly appreciate the interest in this image, good and bad. Thank you.

I actually thought I deleted this image a long time ago, but I had it in a "hidden" folder. I certainly like to work my images to get the vision I'm after, in camera and out. I usually don't reveal what I did unless I'm asked, and then I'm open about it. Like to have my shots judged on their final merit, as I'm sure we all do.

This is actually the first image I did when I first got Lightroom 2 a few years ago. The banding in the sky was bothering me as I felt that it was being caused by the LR grad tool. Even got on some PS forums to ask about it as I thought LR was non destructive :) Took me a little while to get a hand on LR. I've actually done a few versions of this raw file, including the "cloud" version that was posted here. Was going for a little interpretation on this scene, as the blue sky was boring and not quite what I was after. I do like to process my vision and have some fun with my photography.

The blue foreground flowers were under a heavy pine tree in deep shade. I was lying on my stomach with my super wide just inches from them. There was a hiking path and separation between the blue daises and the red flowers further down the slope in deep foliage. Could have worked this area better. Did a little cloning, could have done a little more. A little dark in the foreground, but the Flowers were pretty saturated as Colorado wildflowers get at mid summer in this area.

Certainly a hair saturated :-). I try not to go to far with my processing, but sometimes it's just to darn fun :)

Thanks again,
Brian

Brian, thanks for weighing in and sharing your thoughts as they help others to understand the course of events and the processes which went into the final image. I agree that as a photographer having some fun with the image is a valuable part of the experience. I do find a sense of playfulness and fun running through your work. Congrats on a fine portfolio.

The photographers whose images are chosen as potw having to find out about their image being discussed by happenstance ( that's how I found out about mine too ) is at best , inconsiderate. The photographer not being in a position to respond to questions and comments unless they happen to notice having been chosen, can also hamper discussion.

I also believe that if this image was originally selected from out of a "hidden " folder that the photographers wishes to have the image hidden should have been respected. The entire notion of hidden folders is a joke and a mess at PN. Images from my own hidden folders showing up at the bottom of pages is my reason for opting out of that feature. If Brian had marked this image as hidden I would have hoped that this would be sufficient heads up to the elves that he did not want the image viewed let alone discussed and basic courtesy should have prevented the image from ending up on this page.

i think it's a nice attractive image...there are other landscape photographs and photographers who look for the more dramatic appeal but this image is more "Zen Like" in its appearance, tranquil and with a sense of peacefulness...that's one of the reason I enjoy this kind of image...you don't need dark looming clouds or a dramatic sunset to move the emotions...