"many responders have been very favorably impressed."

Which says something about the popularity of the work (on PN) and nothing about the depth or quality of it.

It's a perfectly good picture of the Colosseum and Marianna did nothing wrong in her editing of it--the cirrus clouds were there, the sunset was there, and the impression of flames adds to the interest of the picture. I suppose in the interests of historical creativity, she might have included a fat guy in a toga with a violin.

I was wondering did you use photoshop on this or is this just the right place at the right time? I love how you captured it head on following the rule of thirds.I also like how it gives the effect that the coliseum is on fire. Great capture & a great subject. I am sure there is so much more to say about this Photo but I don't have the time right now .Great Job.

It is really obvious that the two main flaming clouds are duplicates, one just rotated slightly and partially hidden.

While the OP clearly is under no obligation to state how she processed the scene, the few terse statements she has made about her image don't give me any hint of collegiality or openness.

For example, when I suggested that she might have used a plugin to synthesize the clouds, she denied using those particular plugins, but went no further and did not deny cloning or any other manipulations that she might have used, and have since been suggested.

Similarly, her statement, "...The saturation and colors on the raw image are essentially identical to the final posted one ...", could simply mean that she didn't do very much color adjustment after she exited ACR or whatever RAW converter she used. In contrast, statements such as, "The version posted is the way it looked to my eye", or "The version posted is almost identical to the in-camera JPG", would be much more meaningful and not immediately raise questions of completeness of disclosure.

A large number of us on this forum could easily turn Ray House's version (ie, a scene one might commonly see) into versions similar to the OP's version, so a bit of clarification from the OP is not exactly going to give away any secret processing tricks. It's a fun digital art image, and we should be having fun discussing it in a straightforward, collegial, and open way. Of course, the OP is under no obligation to do so.

Just my $0.02,

Tom M

Dear Tom,

The reason that I do not normally post much details is that I would like people to see my images as they are and is interested in their opinions of the final result. Of course, this is just my personal preference. I had a lot of fun myself learning techniques from looking at people photos, in particularly the ones posted in the PN website, and figuring out how it was done. If someone is interested in techniques I am happy to explain by e-mail, and I have done so in the discussion of this image.

This is a composite of two images, saturation and colors are essentially original on both images, i.e. colors on raw images opened without conversions in Nikon software look about the same as in final posting. There is very little PS work done on Colosseum beyond perspective correction, and is limited to touch-ups such as removal of garbage cans and such. The original of sky shot was an single incredible flame of the kind I have never seen before. The colors were even over saturated in raw image and I toned it down a bit. It was unsuitable for a composite as shot, as it appeared vertical, so it was modified and cloned. I should have been far more careful with this process, and I am glad cloning was pointed out by John and others.

I was entranced with the Colosseum and photographed it for many hours waiting for a few minutes of this magic light where colors turn warm and merge with artificial light in the windows and will look like they do on this image. I have to admit that I did not approach to this as just quickly and in passing photographing a tourist attraction. I felt that original, while being nice solid image, did not express my feeling of the place that I wanted it to. Moreover, I do not believe that any present technology camera can capture exposures needed here as a single image, as regrettable as this fact it. The posted image is my artistic representation of the remarkable monument.

Respectfully,
Marianna

I thank Marianna for her thoughts and the details about the shot.

One thing this photo and thread shows is the relative silliness and unimportance of talking about what's done in camera vs. what's done in post processing. Those discussions often assume that colors tweaked in post processing somehow look more overwrought than what can come out of the camera. Those discussions (as John has pointed out) also often assume that stuff isn't tweaked by the software loaded into the camera itself. Many so-called unmanipulated photos are manipulated by the camera's software which can often be more over-the-top than what a user might do. Also, RAW conversion programs can't be used or opened "without conversions." Even if a user simply uses the conversion program without actually making any choices, the program is making default choices that a programmer decided would be a good default. So, actually, not doing anything oneself when converting from RAW is making a BIG decision . . . to let someone else who hasn't seen your image make a generic decision on how various choices are going to be executed.

Just because no manipulation was done that a user is aware of doesn't mean no manipulation was done. Just because a user felt he or she was taking a no-hands-on approach to the original image doesn't make it a good image. It doesn't matter how colors come to look the way they look. If they look over-saturated, they are over-saturated. How that was caused is mostly immaterial to my experience of what I'm looking at.

Hi Marianna -

What a wonderful reply! Thank you.

Your rationale for not wanting to discuss the details of the production of your images is quite understandable and is shared by many photographers and other artists. I think this approach is particularly useful in steering potential purchasers of an image away from "is it real or not" discussions, and focus their consideration into the "do you like the end result or not" arena.

Probably the best course of action would have been to post a statement about your preferences immediately after your image had been selected. That would have headed off most of the unwanted speculation about your methods. However, because you didn't do this, and the speculation began, some of us felt that getting information about this image was like playing "20 questions" or listening to the famous deposition of former president Bill Clinton where he was pondering the meaning of the word, "is". ;-)

Thank you again for posting the details. As I've said before, it's really quite an eye-catching image, quite appropriate for many uses, regardless of how you constructed it. With regard to technique, you obviously have a good eye to realize what you had in hand and the skills necessary to go from there to what you wanted to show.

Best regards,

Tom M

Washington, DC

"many responders have been very favorably impressed."

Which says something about the popularity of the work (on PN) and nothing about the depth or quality of it.

Well Fred, if someone likes this or any other photograph, who are you to say they like it for something other than the depth they may see or the quality they may see in the photograph? Just because it's not your cup of tea in terms of depth or quality doesn't mean it therefore can't have depth or quality in the view of someone else.

You make a very good point about saturation via camera settings being equivalent to saturation via processing. I doubt that a true "no-hands-on" approach to producing a photograph really exists (or has ever existed). Even some of the lenses I choose affect color. With digital, I always use RAW, and one of the biggest "difficulties" I have is remembering exactly what the scene looked like -- how blue was the blue, how green was the green, how accurate was the auto white balance, etc. With so many decisions to make, I probably never end up with a "no-hands-on" photo, even if that's my goal.

Stephen, I am not necessarily the one to say that what someone else likes is not of very good quality or doesn't have much depth. But I think if you got a group of expert photographers together, ones who are experienced, who have a sense of photographic history and diversity, etc., there would be a trend (trend, not absolute) toward agreement not of what they all "like" but of what they all think is of a certain level of quality and proficiency. The idea that everyone is equally entitled to their taste is very appealing to me. The idea that everyone is equally able to assess the quality of a photo is repugnant to me. Not everyone who ever picked up a camera or ever looked at a photograph is able to judge, though they are able to like and dislike. I like looking at and appreciate architecture a whole lot. And I know which buildings and city plans I like. But I've never done it, haven't read much about it, haven't really studied it, don't much of its history, etc. So I defer to lots of other people to tell me what's actually well done or important in the field of architecture. There are good critics and bad critics in any field. There are experts who know what they're looking at and there are many who don't have a clue.

My last sentence may be unclear. What I mean to say is: There are experts who know what they're looking at and there are many non-experts who don't have a clue.

But Fred, we didn't gather a large group of experts together to assess this photo, so theoretically we don't "know" if it's generally agreed among the experts if this is a good photo in terms of quality and proficiency. It seems you based your statement about popularity versus depth and quality solely on your own opinion of the photo. Also, we must assume that those PN members who did like the photo generally were not experts; that may be true, but I don't know how that can be readily determined.

However, you're not alone. Whenever I read "Great color!" on that photo of bright, neon green algae on the shadow side of a rock as the sun sets on the opposite horizon, I wish to myself that these commenters had a clue about good photography. We all have opinions, and sometimes an opinion on a certain subject can be very strongly held by an individual, so much so that he/she can't understand why most of the rest of the world doesn't think or believe in the same manner. I'm constantly reminded of this by friends here on PN when I attempt to make a distinction between photography and digital artistry. We live in a world of sand, and there are lines drawn all over the place.

Dear Stephen, I have a great respect for you and your work here on photo.net, we do not know each other to make an expert out of you but your work do make you an expert, this obvious and clear.
But we are not here to put a demarkation line who is an expert and who is not, specially with some of the commenters here are even below snap shooters which their portfolio proves this while they try to fool others being experts, when some one luck the know how shouldn’t really start talking about expertise quality.
More over this POW is there for photo.net members to discuss and not for what called Experts or specific Mafia, those whom they think of themselves better than others while their work is nothing but snap shots of very cheap quality and their at the same time reflect their luck of educations.
I hope my English is of no harm to any one, it is just a general opinion of mine and not directed to any one in person.

Rashed;

Give it a rest my friend. You trot out the same tired comment about snap shooters every time you disapprove of the direction a discussion on the potw takes. Knowledge and talent are not synonymous nor does the quality or presence of a PN portfolio indicate anything about the validity of comments made by the respective contributors to the thread.

"I wish to myself that these commenters had a clue about good photography."

Stephen, I wish we saw more of that kind of honesty around PN. It would help people learn how to photograph and how to look at them. Don't undermine it by suggesting it is merely an opinion. It's true. Which doesn't change the fact that everyone is entitled to like a photo or not. It's just that there should be more openness, especially among not-very-experienced photographers, to a more objective level of expertise offered by people with more experience, historical awareness, and ability to evolve their own tastes.

Having a clue has never been a prerequisite to having an opinion. The onus falls on each of us to garner the knowledge and employ the critical thinking needed to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Thank you my friend Gordon, addressing your words to me are very much appreciated but thats do not change my mind or my personnel opinion, you can not an expert as long as you can not handle a camera and take a simple image, you can not also make an expert of your self, we have to leave that to others to decide.
I do not address these words to you by any means my friend neither I do call my self an expert, I just hope those called experts go further with photography and shoot good images and post them here for us to learn from them and also they should go the forums on photo.net, many forums are there and they are very technical and educational, they are of great help.
No one can fool people these days, people can tell who is an expert and who is just of a big mxxx, please forgive my English here, I am trying my best to pick the right words, I understand no one can have his cake and it.
Thank you my friend Gordon again and wishing you all of the best.

As I read this about the characteristics of depth, image quality and proficiency, I think that we have to remember that there are a lot of different reasons people photograph or are on sites like this. I think I understand Fred's notion of depth and I don't think that is priority number 1 for most people and I don't even think it is necessarily needed in many types of photography (although wonderful if incorporated). My guess is that most people are here to learn more technical things or the technical aspects of aesthetic concerns, generally motivated by the fact that they are learning something new and want to get better at it. Looking for that "depth" in images is a frustrating venture much (read "most") of the time.

(Rashed, with all due respect, I do feel you are wrong here. What someone can or can't do with a camera is not the same thing as what they can know regarding the subject. There are great coaches in sports who were never good athletes themselves and very few critics or curators of photography actually photograph. I would like to request that you consider expanding your thinking in this regard as otherwise there is much wisdom and learning that will pass you by.)

Thank you my friend John, I do have respect for you and very one else but I will not give my self to a doctor who not been educationally and practically trained to practice his profession, neither I will take a photographer who can not handle a simple camera and shoot good photos an an experts, thats mean his head is totally empty and just feeding others with wrong informations and he is like the doctor with the qualifications, that doctor might be the reason behind killing one person before he get caught while that photographer expert will kill millions of others.
I will lit the others to decide for them selves who deserve to be an expert and who shouldn’t, the sun can only rise from one direction, thats why it is not hard for any one to make such decision.

Thank you again my friend John, I do not need whats left at the bottom of the coking pot for my dinner.

I think, what we all learn here on PN is enormous amount of tolerance. Tolerance to the opinion of other members and tolerance to difference types of photography. At least that is my experience after having been some six years around, commenting on several thousands of photos and having received others thousands of good or bad critiques on my own photos. Out of tolerance comes respect to people what ever their ideas and opinion.

This does however not mean, that anything goes for each of us, when it comes to the quality of photos. Our personally capacity of differing between the good and the bad; the banal and the profound, comes not only from our own struggle with expressing ourselves in photography but also, for some of us at least, from years of reading and studying arts and art history - reading art books, going to museums and galleries, speaking to artist and art lovers.

With this as ballast we then end up commenting on a photo like the present POW. It happens that for some of us, and at least for me, I see little that speaks to my eyes. Over saturated colors, whether coming directly from the physical reality or from manipulation and post processing, it stays over-saturation, and for me personally an omen of over-use and lost control of effects, and in extreme cases, of kitsch. Others, like the great number of high raters and some of the stronger voices in this thread, might just love it, but in my eyes, my evaluation is somewhat to the opposite. One way of showing my viewpoint is to go to the extreme and provocatively convert the image in to B/W (also correcting the tilt in the centre of the scene as well as my appreciation of the composition).

Stephen, I thought you might appreciate this story about the special insight of art critics:

"In 1964 four paintings by a previously unknown avant-garde French artist named Pierre Brassau were exhibited at an art show in Goteborg, Sweden. Art critics from Swedish papers praised the works. For instance, Rolf Anderberg of the morningPosten wrote: "Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer." However, one critic panned Brassau's work, suggesting that "Only an ape could have done this." As it turned out, the latter critic was correct. Pierre Brassau was, in fact, an ape. Specifically, he was a four-year-old West African chimpanzee named Peter from Sweden's Boras zoo."

From: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/pierre_brassau_monkey_artist/

Stephen I think your process vs outcome point has the right spirit (despite the fact that I have not read a lot of photography history books). It matters if an ape did the work. Although after one critic was told that Brassau was an ape he still applauded the work. So it's pretty hard to tell what art critics are talking about some of the time. Even if two images are identical, it still matters what the process was that produced the image.

I see your process point not as a statement about manipulation (I think most of us know roughly what Ansel did in the darkroom) but as a statement about the importance of pre-visualization. If the digital manipulation is one that was not pre-conceived, then, to me, it is a lesser form of photography. It may be superb digital art, but perhaps not the best photography. When one makes "in-camera" decisions, one understands something about the whole process at the time of exposure. And this understanding represents photographic (but perhaps not artistic) sophistication. Make sense? Is this what you are saying? JJ

"But Fred, we didn't gather a large group of experts together to assess this photo, so theoretically we don't 'know' if it's generally agreed among the experts if this is a good photo in terms of quality and proficiency."

Probably one of the most important things to learn in life is that it's important to know what we do not know. The key here is not necessarily determining who are the experts or whether or not we have them here. The key is each of us having a sense of what we don't know, how experienced or inexperienced we are, and that a lot of people know more than we do. Much art is a matter of exerting one's taste at the same time questioning it and evolving, refining. There is also knowledge about photography, which is different from taste. When I look at someone's work, one of the first things I look for is evolution, change, and growth. When I see in the same body of work a completely unchanging use of color and color saturation or contrast or perspective or clarity or many other elements, I get a sense that their taste is preventing them from advancing and challenging themselves. Without internal challenge, rarely is someone going to be good at something.

I'll add my voice to Gordon's and John's and say that what I think Rashed is missing is that you can listen to someone and listen particularly to their reasoning and way of looking and learn from them. I've had a variety of music teachers over the years. It is absolutely the case that some of the greatest musicians make lousy teachers and critics and some of the lesser musicians have much better insights, judgment, and teaching ability. Not to recognize this seems to me a shame.

Jeremy, I was posting at the same time as you. Your story is an amusing one, anecdotal, and the fact that there are these kinds of funny examples of misreads, etc. really doesn't dismiss the fact that there are knowledgeable people out there and critics that deserve to be paid attention to. I'm sure the same kind of amusing anecdotes can be told about a few teachers here and there and a few engineers here and there. That doesn't mean teaching is not worthwhile or engineering is a hoax.

Dear Fred, I am of no person living in a tent with my camel near by. I am an engineer, a real engineer, I give you all of the access you need to find out that against my name with the BEI or the National Power In UK the X CEGB, they will lit you know what kind of a Senior Authorize Engineer I am, an engineer and not a sweeper on a ship, if I had to learn, I would learn from a Master and not from a low skilled person.
Again my friend, this is just a personnel opinion, I know many here on internet talks a lot and at the end of the day they are empty handed.
Have a good evening my friend, no hard feelings at this end at all.

There is a book--maybe out of print--called Boring Postcards USA. The book is full of banal shots of highways, motels, streets, industrial sites, rest stops etc. There isn't one monument or lush landscape in it. But I honestly find the book and the images much more interesting that if it were full of timeless shots of lush landscapes, sunsets and historical landmarks. Why, because there is actually something to look at that tells me something about the world and how it was and where we have come from. It tells me about taste and styles of another era.

A monkey could have shot half of these shots, and maybe did, but they tell me something more than what I already know and can see anywhere I look these days. I am not saying the images are art, but I am just saying that what an image you create is actually revealing is something to think about--what are you telling people they don't already know and maybe they should. It doesn't have to be what I describe above, just what does your image actually reveal. Not all photography fills this sort of need nor does it have to but it is a good thing to know the difference.