Late for New Hampshire sunset(october)

Ilia, nice shot(s). Everything you did here could have been done with classic means only. The digital technology just made it easier, and less toxic... ;o) Two images sandwiched in the darkroom? No problem. Double exposure? Easy. Breathing chemicals for fun? Yuk. And the final image is very nice. Strong work.

Recently the photo.net technical team added the possibility to see WHO issued the rating. Now I realise who rated some of my pictures with 1/1 and rated his own with 10/10. Too many competitors in top rating?

Fortunately I don't care about rating: not my problems. Enjoy yourself.

 

P.S. Eli Mechnikoff and Eric Krasny are good friends if they do exist.

Andrey Vorobyov is rigth. Now the deal is ohnest.

Ilia is not the one who self rated and always 10/10. To my suprise I found different ones but rating very resonably in my opion. I thought rates are to show us other members feedback and as a guide in improving our images, not virtual self promotion. So I support my first comment it could have been transformed in a photoshop. Sorry I don't trust you Ilia.

I really like it, but I also missed the moon reflection on the water.

Ilia, not everybody can be in siberia. In fact it is a good place to be from. Even though it is a composite, I give you credit for artistic talents and of course it originated from a photo source. In any case it is beatyful... it got my attention!

After reading most of the comments about the digital alteration, I have nothing to add except that even without the moon I liked the picture the instant I saw it. I was a little dissapointed about the manipulation and also because you forgot to put the reflection. But I do like the picture

Stunning

How is it many people seem to think that digital manipulation is some how cheating?

Photographers have been manipulating negatives and prints for decades. There are many examples of procedures considered normal in the darkroom, but cheating on the computer.

I love this picture, and I don't think it even needed the moon adding in. But would it be a bigger acheivement if the post processing was done with chemicals rather than pixels? I think not.

The moon makes this a pretty image stunning.

really, really beautiful....

IMHO the sky is not consistent with sunset: shouldn't the light turn red? Besides, where stars are? I recently shot a photo during the afterglow (http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=363648), and the sky is filled with stars. Of course I could be wrong, I've never been in New Hampshire and there sunsets could be different.

 

That said, I consider it as a photo. I don't know if the photo was photoshopped or if was just underexposed; but I feel that colors are consistent with the latter technique.

 

If the real scenario was different than the look of the photo, this is not enough for considering this a piece of 'graphics' rather than a photo. After all I saw some stunning photos, here on photo.net, depicting moonlight scenarios with very long exposures, turning to daylight-like illumination. Don't we consider them as photos, even if the 'real thing' looks different (unless you have cat's eyes :-) ?

 

PS I forgot to say... I like it :-)

Just a short answer to the last comment: regarding red color - missed it by 5-7 min - damn those tripod legs :). Regarding the stars - tune up your monitor & you should be able to see some even on this relatively poor jpeg.

I wasn't aware that only "straight" photos could be used on photo.net. If so that would eliminate the use of all filters and effects of any kind and what about waiting for the right light? How "pure" does this art have to be? Photography is an art. For centuries art consisted of paints and charcoal etc and I don't think artists were criticized for changing some elements in a scene to make it more artistic. Now we use bytes and pixels, less messy and not as toxic (my house smells like turpentine whenever I paint) plus you don't even have to wear a smock to stay clean. This photo belongs on photo.net as much as any other. As for the reflectiion of the moon in the water...it looks to be too high for this view angle. The water looks perfectly calm so you wouldn't get the scattered effect either. Concerning the sunset and its colors, the lack of any color towards the zenith and the appearance of stars would indicate this is well past sunset. We're talking about a 30 sec exposure here! That's where the blue comes from. Happens most of the time in mostly grayish skys with long exposures. I believe reciprocity failure is the "culprit" here and it works for me.

 

Ilia, excellent job and thanks for sharing it on photo.net. Thanks to you and others like you I don't have to drive all over looking for galleries to view nice stuff. Do you know how much I've saved on gas alone since getting online?

My congratulations, Ilia! You did an outstanding job! Just look at the number of hits and the number of ratings (even excluding large number of your own).

This is one of the cheesiest images I have seen on ptoto.net that attracted so much attention.

Cheers.

Graphic, simple and beautiful.