Firstly, congratulations with your photograph being chosen for photo of the week :-) It is indeed, as has been rightly stated by so many people above, a very beautiful photograph. Regarding the colours and what I suppose to be a slight HDR treatment, I think it was done very well and that the result is very pleasing.

The only slight criticism, or suggestion, as it were, would be, that it seems, that the foot path is not entirely symmetrical. Had it been it might've improved the shot somewhat. It is only my own humble opinion. It is a magnificent shot :-)

Marianna, The POW has been long overdue. I knew one of the pictures that you submitted will be POW. I'm really happy for you. You deserved it..

I'm curious what the original looked like. It was only after a commenter above mentioned the cloned clouds that I realized the two main cloud "flames" that dominate the photo are indeed copies of each other.

I guess I like it fine as a Photoshop job, but knowing that the clouds didn't look anything like that detracts a bit from the impact of the image. It's still very pretty, though!

Personally I don't think the clouds are cloned. This looks to me like it was taken with the white balance set to daylight and that the colors weren't manipulated too much after that. To me it's possible the colors of the scene combined with the white balance could have produced these colors.

Fred, lol I spit soda water onto my calibrated high end monitor when I read your critique.

Of course the clouds are cloned, you cannot have two perfectly identical cloud structures side by side.. just not gonna happen....not even with good LSD.

If you follow the left curve of the roof of the Coliseum into the cloud, you'll see a little wisp just to the left of the tallest "flame." If you look at the tallest flame on the right, you'll see the same wisp (scrunched a bit, as is the rest of the right cloud, which was also rotated). The same is true for all of the other branches/wisps off those two main "flames"; they all match a corresponding wisp on the opposite cloud.

Again, that's beside the point to a degree, but no one looking at the image should think it is "as captured."

With the comments given as to color, saturation and perstective...I did a little reverse post work just to see the end result. This is what came about with levels, color and skew adjustments.

@Ray - Rats! The anti-Christ decided not to come. ;-)

That being said, for pure, unmitigated, over-the-top, black light and Elvis-on-velvet fun, and ability to grab people's attention, I actually do prefer the OP's version. There are occasions when images like that are useful and appropriate, and her version shows very reasonable technical chops.

However, even with Ray's changes, the clouds still immediately grab one's eye as artificial and repetitive. That's why I initially thought they probably were synthesized in a program like Alien Skin's "Little Fluffy Clouds".

Cheers,

Tom M

PS - WRT technical details, it seems to me that there is a bit of unintentional overlap of the clouds in front of the building in the lower RH corner of the building, just above the horizon.

Ray,
The saturation and colors on the raw image are essentially identical to the final posted one. That being said, I did use "vivid" camera setting on Nikon D-200.
Best regards,
Marianna

amazing sky....... I think this photo is a bit over saturation... but over all, this one is nice! congrats!

The more I read the comments and I look at the photo, I'm convinced that it is an interesting shot, but I believe there are three changes I would suggest to do, if Marianna accepts.

First of all there is a serious tilt (1.36), which should be corrected.
Secondly, the long alley running up to the Colosseum is neither very attractive, nor necessary to bring the viewer to the ruin, which imposes itself just perfectly.
Third, I would radically "solve" the question of over-saturation, which to certain degree is a question of the scene itself, with or without the "vivid" setting that Marianna informs us about.
One way of doing that is to transform into B/W.

See the result based on the thumbnail available introducing the two other "corrections" mentioned above.

I hope this is not too provocative, but personally I like it much better like this.

I found a passage  here which can evoke some emotions. This crop has something of Boklin's  one way passage (IMO).

Marianna, I find the colors in your image are of very original nature, what Ray has done to his corrected version is of no improvement but a disaster changes which add nothing interesting here at all, with my full respect to him.
Also the b/w version of Anders is adding nothing of any improvement and at the same time I have checked Anders profile here and with my full respect for him, I do not find him in a technical position to alter the original version of the sake of improvement.
When a person like John A added his point of view to this POW, he have the technical understanding in how an image like this could be improved and thats of nothing wrong at all, but intelligently he did not go changing the characteristic of an image to what would make it look worst.

I think those added versions by some members here, non of them been an add of improvement by any means.
This POW remains to me as original as it could be, possibly with miner touches which keeps the originality over ruling any manipulations.

If this was a POW, I am sure some will make a PS work out of while everything in this image is very original and like exactly whats in the raw file without any alterations if not for the re sizing in order to post here, the moving clouds and their shape is due to the low shutter speed set up.

Rashed, with all respect and not withstanding your kind comments on my "profile", I happen to disagree with you. I see from your photos that you at least have the quality of excelling in saturated photos. A question of taste more than skills, I would believe with all possible modesty.

Converting the image to B&W or otherwise trying to tame the over the top kitsch seems to be an exercise in missing the point. The image has 47 ratings with an average of 6.49 and was chosen as potw precisely because it successfully encompasses the over the top, hit you on the head with an anvil, approach to photography which is wildly popular at PN. To bring the image in line with a less extreme aesthetic would be counterproductive to the intentions of the photographer. Either you love it or you hate it for what it is rather than for what you wish it had been.

When I first saw the POW, I just assumed it was a composite -- I mean, how often can we expect to find cirrus clouds surrounding the coliseum in a manner that look like frames from this ancient building. I've since come to understand that this was a single exposure of what I assume is a very rare confluence of clouds around the coliseum that, to me, look like flames. Also fortunate is the lighting and color within the coliseum itself match the lighting on the clouds to an amazing degree. It's this unusual and extremely fortunate combination that led me to believe this was a composite (debated by many posters), especially in this digital age when such manipulations are fairly common. Marianna says it pretty much matches the original file, and that to me makes the image even more amazing. I think it's the combination of extra saturation (done in-camera) and the unusual confluence of clouds and building that have made this photograph elicit such strong opinions on both sides. Yes, the colors are strong, but is that so unusual among photos submitted to this site? Most such photos don't have the strength of subject and composition as that submitted by Marianna, and perhaps that's one primary reason why the opinions have been so strong. I think Gordon B's more recent posting is a very good summary. I'm struck that the outstanding issue seems to be saturation (I'm assuming the clouds have not been cloned), something that is done all the time with photos on this site. Lost in the conversation about saturation is the very unusual confluence of elements that Marianna has evidently been so fortunate to capture: the presence of the clouds and the lighting within the coliseum that integrates those clouds into the composition so well. I think Marianna could have put some of the questions to rest quite easily and quickly by showing us the original photo (something I'd still like to see, just to understand what kind of processing was applied to make the final image). In any event, this was an unusual experience for me in that I most frequently start off enthusiastic about a photo and end up somewhat disappointed when I learn about the heavy computer processing that was required to make it (more digital art than photography), but this has been just the opposite: initial skepticism followed by increasing respect based on the comments of the photographer. I'm not going to let my enthusiasm be killed by the extra saturation (I would have been dead long ago), but rather I'm going to admire the the rare combination of events that led to this photograph. I hope this admiration will continue over the coming days as more is revealed about the photograph.

Gordon, I appreciate your comments but this is the POW forum and not the Critiques forum. That is why some of us pass by here.
Stephen, I don't really care, apart from of technical interest, whether this POW is manipulated to the extreme or pure Roman reality. In both cases, it is in my eyes, way too saturated which is to the detriment of its esthetic quality - in my eyes, that is. Others have the full right to find it just fine and a pleasure to the eye.

This photo would strike me much the same whether a composite, whether over-saturated in post processing or whether a single shot and over-saturated by a camera setting.

John A. may be right that most would want to take a picture of this scene. Count me out. If I wanted such a picture, I'd buy a postcard at one of the many nearby stands that would be selling such glorified exaggerations of tourist kitsch. And, honestly, I stopped buying postcards years ago. If I wanted a picture here, I'd create one that wouldn't capture the superficially-lit "bea-u-u-u-ty" of it. I'd go for something personal, something that had to do with the Roman Coliseum or my own perspective on it, not with velvia, slider bars, or vacuous pleasantries. I'd want a challenge, both visually and emotionally. I would back completely away from the OOH and AHH shot.

We might consider renaming the POW the Maxfield Parrish forum. I'm of the mind that just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it.

After adjusting for black point, white point, and input srgb color profile.

Fred, your last sentence has been one of my most common refrains over the last several years: just because you can do it doesn't mean you should (regarding the extent of digital processing). I can remember when inkjet printers and their multiple fonts first came onto the scene, and someone posted an ad on a bulletin board and used over a dozen fonts in the ad. It looked terrible, but clearly they were so taken in by the new technology that made new things possible. I think that's where many people are in digital processing.

Relative to many, many images that I see on this site regarding saturation, this (IMO, I must emphasize) is one of the better ones. Let me find that bright, neon green algae on the shadow side of an intertidal rock as the sun sets on the opposite horizon, and I'll show you some hideous saturation. But that's just one person's opinion.

In my previous post, I said that I was more impressed by the fortunate set of circumstances that made the photo possible than I was distracted by the strong saturation. I've since learned that, in fact, this photo is a composite.

I think it is a remarkable composite, despite the saturation, and I can still appreciate it as a photographic-based work of art.

Still, to many people, the process is just as important as the product, and they cannot be unconcerned as to how the image came to be. For example, I've been trying to get a photo of the nearly fully moon rising from behind Mount Rainier. This happens only twice each year. With the clouds for which western Washington is notorious, I've been unsuccessful after five years of trying. I could do this easily and in a moment with photoshop. But would it be the same photo? One would be a recording of an experience (one that required patience and a long time), and the other would not be a recording of an experience. One would have actually existed, the other would have existed only in the mind of a photographer / digital artist. One would have been seen, that the other would not have been seen. When asked by someone from the general public, "Is it real?", I would reply "yes" to one photo and "no" to the other photo.

In other words, for some images and to some people, process is an important component of the final product, and it's not just the final outcome that matters. That' why I like to know up front how a posted image was created, and not just focus on the image while being oblivious to the process that created it. Based on some of the comments above, I'm not the only one who feels this.

Sometimes the blurring between photography and digital art is justified on the basis that it's all art. But I contend that photography as an art is very special and has a very strong distinction from the other arts such as painting, sculpture, glass-blowing, weaving, pottery, and fill-in-your-favorite-art-medium-here. It's the only art that has the potential to capture a real moment in time. While some of this may be documentary, I contend that other such captures have a strong artistic element in that the photographer has to find an aesthetic composition, the light has to be just right, the lens must be chosen to best suit the subject, the shutter speed has to be chosen to best suit the subject, when using film it must be chosen to best suit the subject, when processing a digital photo it must be done in a way that best suits the subject.... all of these are, IMO, artistic in nature. But as a photographer, calling it "art" does not justify grinding and blending an image through a computer while still calling it a photograph as it comes out the other end. At some point, it becomes digital art, equal in stature to photography, painting, sculpture, glass-blowing, etc., but it's a new artistic medium.

And to respond to the inevitable response that I know will come, yes, I think Ansel Adams was more of a dark-room artist than he was a photographer, especially in comparison to someone like Galen Rowell. Yes, he used a camera, but for him that was just the starting point. For the photographer who searches for and finally finds the composition, chooses the lens and shutter speed with care, who determines the best exposure, capturing the image is largely the end, with minor cleaning up done in processing and in printing (choosing the paper, subtly altering the exposure, etc. -- note that I do most of my photography in color than in B&W, so I may not be addressing the B&W folks as much as they would like).

Marianna has a great portfolio, a creative mind, and a gift for bringing ideas to life. As long as I know whether I'm looking at "traditional" photography or "new" computer art, I can admire and enjoy both. It's only when a real experience gets mixed up with a computer experience do I have any problems with the images I'm viewing. As we've discussed before on a number of previous threads, there's not a bright line distinguishing photography from digital art, and one gradually blends into the other. I would classify this as digital art, and that's where I want to start evaluating, discussing, and/or appreciating it as a photographic-based image.

This debate has been going on for a long time, and it will continue for a long time. In the end, I think it's because some people care about the process as well as the product, while others believe only the product or the final outcome is what matters.

Stephen, I wasn't talking at all about digital over-reach. I was talking about a photo I'm looking at. In some cases, how a photo is made will matter to me. In this case, it doesn't. Not because I care whether it's over-saturated by this or that means or even whether or not we call it over-saturated. Let's say it's saturated just enough to bore me to tears. It is a kitschy rendering (no matter how that rendering was accomplished) of a tourist attraction. Taking pictures of tourist attractions, even less over-the-top visions, is one use for photography, to be sure. It's not a use that interests me or captures my imagination in the least.

To me, this is not about digital and film or even processing or over-processing. And it's not about what we label Ansel Adams. Making it into such a debate simply avoids the bigger question, which is why do you photograph and why do you look at them? I don't take them or look at them to be made to say OOH and AHH or to be impressed. I don't look at them because I appreciate that someone else was there with a camera at a certain unusual confluence of events. I want something else. I generally don't care about "captures." (That's me. I don't.) That something else, as far as I'm concerned, exists on PN but has rarely if ever been represented either in the TRP or in this forum.

Stephen, as we are all photographers, we all care about both the process and the final product. One does not come without the other.

However, out of two identical photos, one is not of higher quality than the other because of the specific process, equipment or efforts involved. You frame and exhibit the photo and never the process, by the end of the day.

Consequently, the present POW is of quality, or not at all, independently of the context of its creation, unless Marianna is a performance artist, in which case we are talking about a completely other ballgame that a POW cannot cover in its present form.

Stephen, I hate to burst your bubble, but I believe the only thing Marianna said was that the saturation was as it came out of the camera, which was set on vivid, and nothing about the sky. I didn't notice it at first because it would have meant I had to look further into the image, which isn't my type of image, but that sky is definitely a cloned one--whether in part or in total. There are just too many "exact" characteristics in the two major wisps over the ruins--there has been some camouflaging in some areas, but many tell-tale replications. Noticing this, I would suggest that more attention be paid to such similarities as they will sooner or later be noticed. Even cloning out little spots and such, I always pay attention to what might repeat and when you do a big area like this, it just has to take more time and attention.

I think it sometimes makes it hard to comment on photos that turn you off or don't fit your(globally "your) personal preferences, but I do believe that any image deserves constructive comments, even if those are that you don't find it attractive and why that is so--or no comment at all. As Fred says, this sort of image has its place in the world of photography but that doesn't mean that you have to like it. But being honest, and respectful, about why is always a good thing.

I personally don't have any issue with anyone suggesting that an image is oversaturated even if it is a common occurrence on this site. I believe Stephen hit it on the head when he said that people discover tools and overuse them and sometimes, as is the case here, those tools can be built in to your process--like a "vivid" setting and I don't see how that is more, or less, valid or offensive than doing the same thing in post. How it comes out of the camera has nothing to do with reality but has a lot to do with settings you control--white balance, picture settings, exposure etc and then there are camera characteristics. But when something is felt awry, I think it needs to be pointed out regardless of whether the camera spit it out like that or not--that is not reality!....nor does it rule aesthetic taste or preferences. I will refrain from commenting on Rowell vs Adams except to say that both highly manipulated their imagery. But then if you study the history of photography, what has been considered photography since its inception, manipulation has been a mainstay and a constant since nearly day one--I think people need to study up on their history of the medium before they suggest there is a need to redefine!

Anders, I totally agree with you that one type of photography is not of a higher "quality" (or higher value, or higher whatever) based on the process that produced it. Each has its own skill sets and practitioners who show varying degrees of vision, ability, technical knowledge, artistic creativity, and whatever else it takes to produce a great photograph or great piece of digital art. I do disagree that all photographers care about the process as much as they care about the final product, as evidenced by specific statements to this very question in various threads here on PN. Some do care about the process, others don't; some place a much higher value on the final outcome regardless of process than others (of course, it's usually not an "either-or" kind of response, but rather varying degrees of emphasis among photographers placed on outcome and process).

Yes, I frame and exhibit photos, but at the end of the day I still get asked questions as to how it came to be (the "Is it real?" question is, to me, the most revealing about the state of photography today in the minds of some [but certainly not all] people).

Whether this image is oversaturated is, of course, entirely subjective. Many of the most vocal critics believe that it is, but it's exactly how Marianna had set her camera to produce what she wanted, and many responders have been very favorably impressed.