Waterfall Prism

It needs a lab to capture some physical phenomena like this,and the mere capture of this white light as it analysed to its basic colours in this wonderful manner worth to be here,so very beautiful in its composition,exposure,and the fascinating light.

While I sometimes disagree with John's overall assessment of a particular landscape photograph, he has in the past clearly articulated his criteria for landscape photographs that he finds appealing, and I accept those criteria, even though they are different from my own. That just reflects the diversity of personal aesthetics among PN members. He shouldn't be criticized for having a different standard; I'm glad he has a standard and can articulate that standard.

Regarding Alberta's view that this particular photo is not representative of Chris' true ability as a photographer, I come back to the stated purpose of the POW. It's my understanding that this feature of PN is not intended to be a showcase, yet so many viewers interpret it as such. I can't blame them, because it's called "Photo of the Week" and the "winner" gets a gold cup. I've said it several times before, and I'll say it again: a lot of confusion and misinterpretation would be eliminated if this feature were called the "Critique of the Week" and the symbol of recognition were something other than a gold cup. Indeed, considering the random nature of selecting a photo for weekly critique, I don't think any symbol is warranted for having a photo selected for weekly critique [although I understand that many past "winners" would strongly object and create a lot of headache for the elves, and this fact alone may make a mid-stream change impossible, despite my unassailable logic ;>) ].

My interest in this photo lies with its relatively unusual nature. While it may not be especially aesthetically appealing to me, Chris has caught a natural phenomenon that is very strong expressed, certainly more interesting in this regard than a rainbow arching over a broad landscape, and I like the photograph for that reason. Again, I am sad to read some questioning whether the use of digital manipulation has created this photo. Those comments are just another indication of the extent of such manipulation in today's photography that has us questioning the authenticity of any unusual or striking photograph. That's a shame, and I think overuse of digital manipulation is diminishing the appeal of landscape photograph in general among many photographers as well as the viewing public. Those who think only the end result matters and the process of getting there is irrelevant are, IMO, doing a disservice to the special nature of photography, including the art of photography.

I'll bet the elves thought they had found the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow when they stumbled upon this image. This image epitomizes the PN PoW aesthetic.
All the elements seem to be there and the phenomenon itself is interesting but it just does not do anything for me. I agree in part with Stephen and wonder if my own disinterest stems to some degree from the overabundance of over the top landscapes photos I am subjected to every time I visit PN.
As for the relative position of John's head in relation to his arse , I've often thought, when reading his words, that he was talking out of his arse but it never occurred to me that he had his head up there........ just kidding John, you know we love ya :-)

When I finally came out of my "cave" this morning, where I was planning just HOW I was going to steal Christmas, I have to admit I got a bit of a chuckle from the two comments under my own. Well, a bit of a chuckle while I also had to shake my head a bit. I am not sure why opinion, which I believe was well articulated as to the conclusion, would warrant such personal attacks. It doesn't bother me, but I wonder how many others who might have garnered the courage to finally be ready to contribute an opinion here, would recoil and pull back knowing they could be so attacked. This is where the lack of moderation of this thread has become want, as such comments would never have been allowed in previous years. It is immature behavior that doesn't serve the discussion but instead stimulates side discussions that don't contribute to the purpose of the POW. On the other hand, I am grateful that we have been allowed to pursue tangent ideas, at least later in these discussions.

One of the best comments I have read here so far, although I don't totally agree, was Juan's argument for this image:

Such analysis and rationale suggests thought and stimulates reconsideration by any of us who might actually think about what we look at. It develops a well thought out rationale in support of the image and brings a bit more insight to the image and one's own position than

I also tend to agree with Stephen's own analysis:

To be sure, if I stumbled across such a phenomenon I would certainly make a photograph of it. I would make some quick ones to "get it" and then I would try to position myself in such a way as to create a "better" image incorporating it. Sometimes these things are fleeting and we are left with that quick shot. I would then certainly share an image of such a phenomenon, even if I had captured this one, with my close friends, if the opportunity arose, as I do feel the phenomenon is interesting. But for me, that doesn't make, in and of itself, a great photograph and I don't know that I would go any further with it if it were mine. As I believe I explained, the basic nature of the photograph is not compelling or well composed in my opinion and it is the phenomenon captured that makes this image attain its level of interest. As Juan said, it does create some rhythm in the image and, for me, it does tend to introduce some balance to the image that would not have been there otherwise. Obviously, for some that is enough and in some cases capturing such things might be enough, but it just isn't, for me, in this case.

For clarity's sake, I did not question that this was manipulated after I read Chris' own statement and included that statement in my comment to hopefully put that issue to rest. I have no reason to question him and take his word on it, which doesn't mean that such thoughts didn't cross my mind or wouldn't--it is an odd phenomenon if only for the reasons I mentioned. Also, don't think I am not as hard on my own images as I am with any comments I might make here or elsewhere, I am much harder in actuality.

A wonder shot and perfect pick! Thanks!

That is sick (in a good way)!  

A magical kind of journey of light and color. At the least an inducement for all who have eyes to see to look closer at little piece of the real world and capture it, And watch the play of light and shadow. And little bursts of texture in the rocks, or particles of quartz. Rather nice. Composition could be discussed all day. I might have shortened it and left top part off. More to the imagination, less is more in this case, a lot going on as it is.

99% of my work is medium format B&W, for me color has to be a predominate design element to break out the slide film or, gasp, DSLR. This is a stunning example of a color shot. While I also always want to know "how it is done" the only truly important thing is that the photographer somehow managed to capture the information and present it to us. Although I admit I'm quite happy to see that people can and do still take great pictures without post-processing.

I find this image inttriguing for the same reasons many others do: It looks manipulated, but is not. When I read that Chris said it was not I had to revisit this image and look further. The problem I have with it is that the textures where the apparent light rays come across the image seem man-made. Then it dawned on me. This image could be a combination of a reflection in the original image, which is most likely the waterfall. That is about as much thought I want to put into the image, though, as I am over the interest part since I made my decision on how this was executed, which in some ways, backs up John's feelings about it. For me there is no story, only the initial intrigue.
Paul

It's a nice, colorful image, I'll give it that. But overall, I have to agree with John. There's an immediate bit of impact and once that is overcome, the image begins to pale rapidly in terms of "interestingness". My essential beef with it is that it has no one subject... no one point of interest. In fact, the many levels of cascading water and the spectrum hues at opposing angles continually compete with each other. My eye bounces from one to the other and never rests on either. I think it got chosen for PoW simply because it's different. Score one point for that.
I also agree with John in his second post regarding personal attacks on his vision. This is supposed to be about the image, not about the seeming fact that you don't agree with his comments on the image. If a PN member is so shallow and uneducated photographically that this is the best s/he can do in terms of a critique, then don't post but please learn from what others do post.
FYI, I posted many an image a few years ago but left for reasons similar to those above. I got tired of getting threes without any explanation. There's a better way to get feedback than this.

Image looks great. However, it's not a photography. It's another Photoshop creation. Maybe we should put away our cameras and lenses and just concentrate on mastering Photoshop. Not me!

Image looks great. However, it's not a photography. It's another Photoshop creation. Maybe we should put away our cameras and lenses and just concentrate on mastering Photoshop. Not me!

Image looks great. However, it's not a photography. It's another Photoshop creation. Maybe we should put away our cameras and lenses and just concentrate on mastering Photoshop. Not me!

I would like to see more of the surrounding area of where the photo was taken. Then I think it would give an even more impressive look showing the spot as standing out from its surroundings. The photo does look great. I'd just like to see how the colors form in that spot.

It's not a photoshop composite, it's a natural phenomenon that occurs at a certain time of day when the sun crosses in front of the waterfall, filtered through the trees overhead and lights up the mist in front of the falls.

The location is Ramona Falls at the base of Mount Hood in Oregon, and the shot is very similar to one taken by Marc Adamus several years ago.

http://www.marcadamus.com/photo.php?id=120&gallery=waterfall

When a picture is Photoshopped or appears to be Photoshopped, it leaves the viewer with doubt about it's authenticity - especially with landscapes that no one has ever seen before or can reasonable have assumed was never seen. I do not doubt the photographer that this is real. It just leaves doubt because a picture must stand on its own without commentary or even a caption.
I also agree with John A and some others. It's interesting as a record shot of some unusual natural phenomenon for a science book. But it doesn't hold my interest aethetically. It's too unnatural looking. The picture also might need leveling as it seems tol tilt a bit to the left. Of course that could be the prism playing tricks with my eyes.

Thanks for posting the link to Marc's version, Sheldon. I had to check it out. From looking at both images, I like Marc's better. There is enough of the waterfall in it to provide a foundation for the image, whereas Chris's version seems disjointed because the light rays compete with the waterfall. Lastly, I agree that some people are being a bit hard on John. Every person is entitled to his opinion about these images, and the focus should be on people's opinions about these images, and not about people's opinions. After all, John supports his comments and opinions by connecting them directly to the image at hand. I also agree with what Stephen has been saying for a while about the title of this forum. It should be called something different so that people do not come to POW and think it is a competition, and that praise is always in order.

@ Judson: Isn't it possible that an entire image is the subject or the point of interest? This is a waterfall with diffracted sunlight streaming through the mist, thereby creating several "rainbows" on the face of the falls. To me, that's the point of interest. Sometimes a landscape may have a central point of interest, but other times it appears that the entire photograph (e.g., a photo of Mt. Rainier above Reflection Lake) is the subject. That's quite unlike portraiture in which there nearly always is a central point of interest.

@ Rick: You make a very serious error when you assume with great certainty how a photograph came to be, whether via a camera or via photoshop. I've been accused of adding elements to a photo when in fact I did not (nor did I even have the photoshop skills to do so). Such an accusation is insulting. You should ask the photographer instead of making an assumption. For what it's worth, I've seen natural phenomena like this, so I know it's entirely possible. Your comment only reinforces what I said in the last paragraph of an earlier comment, and you're a good example of a victim of way too much digital manipulation in landscape photography today (IMO!). It's a sad state of affairs when we can't trust or believe a dramatic or unusual photograph has captured a slice of the real world.

While the image is certainly interesting in terms of color, texture and composition there is an imbalance created by the brightness and direction of the light beams. My eyes are not sure where to go first. Tone down the light beams in Photoshop and this picture has a totally different image personality. Great capture.

It's a wonderful photograph. It's beautiful. It's magical, like something out of 'Lord of the Rings', only without the CGI. I love it that this is how it actually looks. I hope I can get there someday. Thanks for sharing it.

Having just resigned from a photographic society owing to pompous bitching, arguing and over inflated egos, amongst members, I find it sad that this contagious disease is still quite virulent on this site. Look at the image; is it not pleasing to the eye? If it was not, would the photographer have posted it? This is a damn good image and one that compliments the work of its creator. - Well done mate!

Phenomenal photograph. I don't care if it was manipulated. Photography itself is manipulation, although, fine, it's great if a photograph is 'pure', but there's too many people obsessed with purity in a medium that is suffering from digital growing pains.
All that matters is the final image, and this is a great one. Not only are the color splashes among the grey interesting, the composition of the shot itself is unquestionably great.

good job!

quite a difficult shot to create and you have done it justice. whether manipulated or not its an image that is effectively edited to make the transition between reality and purity seamless. the light contrasts are matched well with the colour tones. compliments on a wonderful image and congrats on it being chosen as POW

The issue for me is whether or not this is a copy of Marc's image. My guess is that it is. If it is, then I'm not impressed. In fact, it turns me off. When concept, method and location are directly copied, and the result is no better than the original, this is very unappealing photography to me. In such cases the creator of the original is to be highly commended for doing something others want to copy. If this is a copy, the selection of this image from Chris's portfolio is disappointing to me. IMO, Chris has so many unique and beautiful images that are much more worthy of praise than this one....Oh, and if it's not a copy, well done Chris. A bit heavy on top with not much continuity of color in the bottom half of the image but still an insightful, creative and unusual image.

And on the first comment about John, this is highly unacceptable. John is an asset to photo.net. He always gives informed, educated and insightful justifications for his opinions. Best, JJ