Trappers Wilderness Area

I liked this image for its well balanced exposure at different zones and also for the superb DOF where the photographer managed to show us remarkable details all the way through, the colors also of very pleasant nature here, this shows that Elves do not just pick anything for the POW but they are very selective and they know what they do.
The only minor thing here which I thought could give a better appearance to this lovely image is cropping the part of the shaded area at the foreground and leave everything else as it is including the sky as it so well contrasted and with little but moving clouds.
Wonderful image and very pleasing.

I think it has a "Run of the Mill" feel to it. However, I do like the low angle it was taken at. There's an excellent DOF & the saturation of color is very favorable

To me there is a strong sense of place in spite of some of the technical arguments above. It is hard to separate the technical elements of the picture from the subject matter: and in this case, the subject matter is a beautiful landscape. And I think the time of day was perfect for a good balance of light also for the distant mountans and the shadow below.

Sure there's quite a bit of post processing but I think it makes a fantastic image. I love the composition and the different colors exhibited in the different regions of the image. It provides a very pleasant ride into the horizon. Congrats.

Yes, it might be a bit blue, and a tich over saturated, but some days just look like that! Might be hard to believe if you live in the smoggy haze of the east coast, but a clear evening in the Rockies can make you exclaim outloud (to yourself), "Wow, look at that blue sky!" This picture brings back days I've felt that way.

what smoggy haze?

Great example of "photoshopography." I have a feeling the original raw image is better than this one. I pretty much agree with everything Brett said about the problems with the image.

Ha ha ha ha. Must be all the western Washington smog playing tricks on you Jim. ;-)

Going through the entire folder, I noticed that the sky was photoshopped into quite many of the photos. (evidenced by the shadows, reflections, and sun not lining up, as well as two suns in some photos.) I feel like you're trying to use photoshop to make photography rather than using the camera. Many people have said that they don't think the manipulations really have any bearing on the photos, but I feel when it's a habitual thing while letting people believe the photo hasn't been touched in that manner is pretty dishonest. One interesting thing though, the photos that I was drawn to are also the ones that have been manipulated drastically, then I blow them up on the other monitor and I'm just disappointed. I'm not saying manipulating them is wrong, it isn't, and I've done the same on a few occasions, but tell people that it's fake.

Side note: Why do we constantly have to question if a photo was manipulated in this manner on photo.net?

"Dishonest", I do not really agree with this phrase at all.
One Brian posted this image in photo.net on 15/08/2008 he never said it is not been manipulated and he also never knew that is image will picked and made POW more than two years later.
The purpose of the POW is to work out how could this image be better and not facing the photographer for a personnel hung up and executing.
I now this image been manipulated and I mean here the sky, if wanted to know the evident it is clear, there is a green strip separating the sky from the set of mountains, that where the different two image do meet, having said so, let face the fact, every one of us using a digital camera his images are manipulated, that camera is having the photo shop, if not called so then its called by a different name but still it is called Soft Ware, there are many names for the sword but at the end of the day it do the same job.

I'm a cloudy day photographer, I think that's obvious. I TRY to avoid shooting the sun, that's for sure. The few that I have, I can state for a fact that I did not put two suns in there :)

I've worked some skies on some of my shots, you bet. Merged some clouds in at times when I felt it helped reach the vision that I had for that image, you bet. Burned and dodged that sky in, you bet, always. Try to avoid replacing entire skies, I'm not that good :) Never have composed one of my compositions in PS 8 and Lightroom yet though, but I'll work on that.

You know, but then maybe you don't, photography is an art form. A total art form from the time you click that shutter to when you hit the save button on that finished print. I don't put ANY rules on that creativity. I just do what I can to reach my vision. Never have sold my photography to be any more than that. When art ceases to be, and actually gets to be criticized for being creative, well that's kind of a shame.

In reality, most of my processing is burn/ dodge in layers. Carving the layers. Ansel Adams had a couple quotes that are just as relevant today as they were 50 or 60 years ago when he stated them.

"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships"
"You don't take a photograph, you make it."
Thanks,
Brian

Well amongst all this people and in this discussion I would say I just came out of the womb. So nothing serious.
But Salute for the lovely picture.
Cheers!

nice composition over all but there is competition between foreground and background that are both in focus and nearly same intensity of colours and details. The subject is also to idyllic or idealized for my taste , but the overall effect is still very pleasing.

...i just dnt have words to describe, great precision.....its just excellent n in fact very soothing ...well ..i rate it 10/10 !!

Wonderful ! no cropping, please. I wish this image was mine. Congratulations, Jana

Hi, I've been attracted by this image because I think it is very well realized, in the shooting phase and in the postprocessing phase, and reaches a great level of visual appeal. It deserves the attention of a POW. But, reading the comments, I realized I'm not the only one disappointed discovering its manipulations, and for the sake of discussion I would like to add my point of view, trying to be provocative ...

When I discovered the PS manipulation my first reaction has been: 'well, that wonderful place exists, but it is never been like it is represented in this image'. Manipulation is welcome when it is used to create something new from scratch, lot of great examples here of PN. But used for a sort of 'doping' of a landscape, while retaining at the same time the realistic feeling of the shot, is disappointing.

When looking at this image, people compare it, unconsciously or not, to the real landscape they have seen in their life. It is not evaluated in a neutral way, it is not a 'neutral' image: it is evaluated for what it represents: mountains, grass, flowers ... a photographer that modify heavily a landscape (or a portrait), but in such a skilled way to make almost impossible to notice it, exploits this people approach in order to get positive responses. It is the same approach used in advertising, where cheating is the rule. One of the consequences is that images representing a great, but not heavily manipulated, landscape, are often ignored, like a honest cyclist can't win a race where other cyclists use doping.

In my opinion this is not the case of the other Brian's images: most of them crosses the line and may be considered for what they are, *great* digital alterations based on landscapes, and from this point of view they are striking, great images, showing skill and taste, and I love them.

Hoping my english is comprehensible ...

Brian, congrats for being POW!!! Keep up the great work!

Rashed, many people don't use software to manipulate their photos. Not all of the photos I posted in my portfolio are post processed.

Some photographers don't need to... Anyway, the lying and BS on this site has really turned me off. I'm moving on. Take care John,

Gordon, et all. Best wishes.

Let this be a lesson for all of us who insist on having the latest and greatest equipment. In this age of 25 MP we have a gentleman who with a ten megapixel camera presents us with a stunning piece of art. Hats of to you my friend.

It's very well realized and interesting to learn about techniques here- any and all techniques. I do love the periwinkle blue of the flowers. Thanks to the photographer for his comments. Best regards,

Perhaps there is a difference between what Ansel Adams did in working with tonal transitions in his post-processing work and what many are doing today with photoshop in post-processing work. If Ansel Adams was referring to tonal transitions when he said "You don't take a photograph, you make it" (not sure if that is a direct quote, but it's close), do you think he would say the same thing about substituting one sky for another, removing or adding a tree for better aesthetic balance, cloning flowers and grass to cover areas that would otherwise be bare, and similar "doping" of the landscape as Alberto Pareto has termed it? Or is there a significant difference between the "making" of a photograph as done by Ansel Adams compared to that which is done by someone who creates a new landscape that looks like a real landscape but which doesn't exits (again I'm using the thoughts of Alberto Pareto)? We justify it by calling it "art," and art is a personal creation based on a personal vision, so anything goes.

I contend that photography has entered a new realm when software is used to change a landscape in fundamental ways, far beyond working with tonal transitions. The realm is so new that it hasn't yet been given a name as an art form. David Kilper has termed it "photoshopography." Others have tried "digital imagery," "graphical photography," and I'm sure there are more. Again, the intention is to create a realistic looking photograph of a real place, but which was never really seen because parts of it were added, removed, or changed in significant ways. We're not just addressing the mistakes God made with tonal transitions, but mistakes God made with the creation of a landscape. Is a photograph of God's creation in the same category as changing God's creation according to our personal artistic vision and turning that into a photograph?

The difficulty we're having is partly because photography has always created images that could never be seen by the eye, and they are based on the artistic visions of the person behind the camera. Very long exposures, fisheye lenses, moving the camera while the shutter is open, high-key black and white, all of these (and I know others could add more) are highly modified versions of real scenes but which could never be seen by the human eye.

Another difficulty we're having is that the distance between a photograph that faithfully reproduces, to the greatest extent possible, what the eye saw and a photograph that is only vaguely similar to something that occurs naturally is a continuum, and different methods and degrees of alteration are like pearls on a string along that continuum. There aren't any bright lines separating them.

Regardless of those difficulties, the "doping" of a landscape to pass it off as the same thing that a person would have seen if they had been standing beside the photographer is different from a landscape photograph that has not been subject to doping. Both can be beautiful, but they are fundamentally different when hung on a wall for viewing. It's not just the end result that matters; the process is also an important part of the product. It's not right to gloss over this simply by calling all of it "art."

At some point along this continuum of alteration I think it matters. I don't know whether there will ever be widespread agreement that 1) it does matter, or 2) it matters from "this" point on. The debates will continue, and those to whom it does matter will cease participating in forums where all things possible in photography, from no digital manipulation to highly modified digitally, are treated as one. They will cease participating because they know in their mind and in their heart that all things possible in photography are not all the same. Saying "I saw it" versus "I saw it in my artistic mind" are not the same. The former can theoretically be directly experienced by another person; the latter cannot. Somewhere therein is a divide. Yet presently it's all landscape photography.

I'm ambivalent on"photoshopping" a picture. I like using a polariser which intensifies colors that may not look like that in realty. Sp how is that different that doing it in the computer? I guess, we all do it to a certain extent. I suppose when the final image doesn't look like it could be real that I draw the line. For example, in this picture, the colors don't look real like something I could actually ever see. The flowers are a little too purple and blue. I think it might be a better picture, for me of course, if you backed off the saturation some what.

Why should relate a Master like Ansel Adam’s work with what Brian have posted here? And why not Ansel Adam wasn’t manipulating his images?
The man was by all means changing what his camera been seeing and altering the image reality, didn’t he use on his b/w images filters, like the red, green, yellow and orange ones, and why he did use them, isn’t that to drive his camera to record what he want, didn’t he use a polarizing filter to enhance the appearance and contrast of the sky’s in his image, didn’t he use an ND filter to alter the characteristic of a water fall, didn’t he alter the light which his camera is seeing and worked that in according to his zone system on the field and then altered the design characteristic of his film chemically when he is back home?
Well this is all manipulations, but if Ansel Adam is present among us today, who could tell him you do manipulate your images, may be no one, but we did say this to Brian, even at a time where his image looked in a superb form, I do not know why this so argumentative by some people here.
Now the other part of my input to this POW and I hope people will do appreciate what I am going to say.
Asel Adam work done on film cameras, where life wasn’t as easy as it is with today’s technologies and our modern digital world, BUT he made the photograph and he did not take take it, today every one of us as long as having a cheap snap shooting camera in his hand he think of himself a Master, we talk a lot and many of us including myself, know very little or may know things at all, some start this way and then learn from others and by educating themselves, hey do improve, while some remain forever unchanged, because they have no self interest to learn, walking but without gaining one inch forward.
When I said previously that having a digital camera itself means manipulating, I was referring to the camera setup which is no more mechanical but digital and software wise, everything the camera sees is being digitally processed via small computer machine inside the housing of that camera, even when we alter the parameters to work for our need or taste it is still done digitally and that is Manipulation Work.
When Ansel Adam did all of that alterations to his image while shooting or while processing his films, he wanted at the end of the day to make a good photograph not just to take a photograph.
This is not related but again it has to be said, the POW should have more people here to add comment on, it is not there just for few people every week to come with same talk of not liking the image because it is been manipulated, there is always good things in an image which might not be in another one and it is nice to bring that out as the case With this week POW, unfortunately many people seems scared to touch the POW for a reason or another, may some are scared of writing things and the Masters comes and jump on them, the participants are not many related to the number of members on photo.net.
POW is a remarkable privilege photo.net did add to the system, it is very educational and great source for many to improve their skill and learn all of the techniques, that why I invite the other members to participate here, I am great believer that there are so many great photographers on this site whom they could assist by their inputs to POW in helping other members to learn many things.
A real or serious Photographer do not just Take photos but he Makes them!

In my previous post I elected to omit a paragraph in which I compared Ansel Adams post-processing to produce an image with those of Galen Rowell and Art Wolfe. I know that many of the images Galen and Art (at least in past years) did on color transparencies did not require the work that Ansel did on B&W. Many have stated that's one of the advantages of color transparencies -- what you see is what you get. [Granted, that's the old way; today transparencies are scanned, and then the world of digital possibilities opens up.] So along the continuum, Ansel probably did more work than Galen or Art, but as far as I know (and in Ansel's own words), he was dealing with tonal transitions. He was also dealing with the limitations of film and working to get the final outcome to look more like the eyes would see it than what a straight print could or would reveal. Theoretically, I could stand where Ansel was standing and see what he showed to us in his photographs. Surely tonal transitions are a different beast than cloning or erasing.

It's not an either-or question. If it were, it would be easy to answer. It's a continuum from unmanipulated to highly manipulated. It's a continuum of purposes, from making an image look more like the eyes would see it (e.g., burning and dodging a nighttime shot with the moon, and some modern-day HDR) to something the eyes could not see because the scene doesn't exist (e.g., cloning and erasing).

There are many stunningly beautiful photos in existence that were printed straight from a color transparency (granted, a person's choice of film would affect the transparency). Surely those came from real and serious photographers. To say that such photographers make rather than take photographs is a rather hollow and flippant statement, but totally in tune with our world of sound bites.

I still think that being able to say "I saw it (and here it is)" is fundamentally different than saying "I saw it in my artistic mind (and here it is)." Both can be stunningly beautiful, but the process to arrive at each can be radically different in terms of the kind and amount of post-processing required. And from another thread a few days ago, if a member of the public pays $1000 for a landscape print, it often matters to them if they are told where they might see the scene versus if they are told they can never see the scene because significant elements of it were digitally created.

Rashed, while I agree that it would be nice to have much broader participation by the membership in the potw forum I do not think the lack of participation relates in any significant way to people being afraid of the "Masters" I think most people are simply not interested in critiquing images preferring to hang out elsewhere at PN. Thinking about images and engaging in discussions about their pros and con is not everyones cup of tea. If all the people of whom you do not approve suddenly stopped commenting, I suspect that rather than a flock of suddenly emboldened but originally frightened sheep showing up in their stead what would occur would be that no one would be commenting at all.

It is my opinion that if someone such as David K for example (since he has suggested that he no longer wants to participate) stops writing his views, the forum will be poorer for having one less voice. In my opinion your idea that we need to clear out the dissenters to improve the forum is misguided at best.