Good grief Rached, calm down, please.
What would it help, if we all came with our diplomas and professional careers, salaries and fortunes showing that we do not "sweep on ship" - or lack of the same, showing that we do. How on Earth could that help you to appreciate our comments on photography? My own modest photos, or yours, are as modest they may be, with or without our diplomas.

"tell me something more than what I already know"

!!!

My friend Anders, I am sorry, but again how it would help one some out there, relate a POW which is a photograph to what his Present is saying on this thread?
Thank you my friend again.

Hmmmmm, I have swept ships......

That's might be why your photography is of interest, John. I have only swept very small boats.

Yes, thanks--boats, HaH--no wonder!! ... and this might be of interest:

This may be more apropos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oqHrPQ9ULM&feature=related

Well I guess it's been said already but I'm pretty sure that sky was cloned from something else...which ruins it for me. If I didn't know any better I would definitely think it was a cool photo, but mostly because the photographer had the luck and timing to capture such a beautiful sky with that striking subject. Knowing that the sky is fake just ruins it IMHO. Nice digital composite though.

Great shot. The buildings lights are a bit offensive sometimes when my eyes wonder around the photo. Maybe that's just because I would prefer no lighting on the building to highlight the sky. Probably because I would prefer a more natural look since it seemed the light was a bit bright. We all know it is hard to be in the right place at the right time. To each their own.

But Jim, it's not a "shot." It wasn't made with a single click of a shutter. Photographs previously taken were brought together in a computer and combined to make a composite photo. I don't know if we like the composite and say "great shot" out of habit and as a carryover from the days before computers (yes, I'm revealing my age), or if some say "great shot" because they think the person was standing there looking at all of these elements when the shutter was fired.

Clint, would it have made any difference to you if you knew from the start that this was a digital composite? Frankly, for me it does, and I find that curious. My mind has a pre-set button that affects how I view a photo. Folks might say I should have a completely open mind, but I don't. The reason I don't has been stated before: I'm one of those to whom the process is an important component of the product (not the only component, and certainly not the most important component, but an important component nevertheless).

John, I think I also understand what Fred means by "depth," and despite my previous comments, I also tend to agree with him. I sense that what is meant by "depth" means stimulating thought, bringing together elements in an original and honest and thought-provoking way, striking a strong emotional chord, capable of being an archetype of an idea or emotion.... hopefully I'm at least close. Based on that, I'd have to agree that relatively few of the photos posted here have that kind of depth. I'd also say that nearly all of my own photos lack that kind of depth. You're absolutely right that we all make photographs for different reasons, and "depth" is not currently high on my list (if it were, I'd probably be photographing something other than landscapes). I participate in photography because of my life experiences, and photography adds more than most can imagine to my enjoyment and appreciation of life and the world we live in. I suppose "seeing" the world is more important to me right now than "thinking" about the world. However, when I view a photo that does both, or if I'm ever able to take a photo myself that does both, I'm thrilled. It's a pinnacle of achievement, but I just happen to generally be on a different mountain (although I can see you on that other peak from where I'm dangling from my climbing ropes, and I think we can hear each other as well). What does matter to me is aesthetic composition, especially in the realm of landscapes, and "decisive moments" where this aesthetic composition is based on a real experience.

Jeremy, yes, that's part of what I'm saying. Pre-visualization is, IMO, a higher expression of expertise in photography. The alternative is luck or shooting from the hip or shooting as one walks down the road. Regardless of what one thinks about the saturation in Marianna's photo, I'm quite sure she pre-visualized the final image in her mind, and she brought together the elements that realized her mental image. She also did it with a degree of technical expertise that makes me envious. Your comments also bring up an important point of the distinction between being an expert and being a good critic. I don't think the two are synonymous. A great photographer can be a poor critic if he/she can't articulate what "works" in a photo and what doesn't work, or can't offer a path from a lackluster photo to a "great" photo. Sometimes a great photographer / poor critic may be operating more on instinct than conscious thought, and instinctive ideas are difficult to articulate. Other times this great photographer / poor critic can be great with a camera but poor with words. I also think the opposite end of the scale can work: a good critic doesn't necessarily have to be a great photographer (this is where I believe I disagree with Rashad). Looking at a photo and being able to identify the elements and describe how they work together after someone has done the work (made the image) is not the same as looking through the viewfinder and knowing where to point the camera and when to press the shutter; that's original work. When I was working for a state agency as well as editing a science journal (something we have in common), I found it far easier to edit a document than it was to write an original document. I was a very good editor; I am an average writer. The same can be true in the world of photography. However, at the end of the day the best scenario is for both characteristics to be present in someone who comments on photos -- a great photographer (at least in my sense of what constitutes a great photographer) and a great critic. Fortunately, I really do find a lot of that here on this site (but we still need to hear from those who may not be great photographers, and to those who may not be great critics -- keep trying). I think the PN administration's changes to the system by recognizing those who provide "helpful" comments has increased the quality of comments being provided in photo critiques.

Stephen, you're close but perhaps putting too much emphasis on thought for the way I look at it. Though, certainly, thought, feeling, and emotion play a big part in what I consider to be significant photographs. For me, photographic depth is also a visual thing -- some of which can't be translated to meaning, interpretation, or thought -- beyond just there being a sense of physical depth represented in a photo. It is the way all visual elements and aspects are integrated, I think, that helps determine the depth of a photo.

Fred, I know what you mean, and that makes sense. That's an important aspect when I view photos.

Jeremy, I've been post-thinking about pre-visualization. Two things: I think it's probably more important for some kinds of photography / computer artistry than others. It's probably more important for Marianna than it is for me. Also, I'm not sure how far ahead the "pre-" must be done to qualify as "pre-." Perhaps more important than pre-visualization in some cases is the idea expressed by John Daido Loori in his book "The Zen of Creativity" (he's a Zen master as well as a photographer). John Loori talks about knowing, sensing, or experiencing the essence of a place in order to better photograph it. In one sense, this might be defined as pre-visualization, although it's not the most commonly understood meaning of the term. It's quiet time in which a person expands his/her awareness of a place, seeing the place with one's whole mind, and sensing the essence of a place and the elements that contribute to that essence. That approach fits very well with one of my own goals in landscape photography, and that is to come away with a photograph that expresses the essence of the landscape I've been in. It might be a broad view of the area, or a small but important element in the area, or it might be a photograph that creates a similar mood or feeling that the photographer experienced in the area. It's this increased awareness, brought about by having a camera in hand, that enables me to more intently experience an area, certainly more so than if I were hiking through the woods from point A to point B (which would still be enjoyable, just not as memorable or as deeply experienced).

Marianna stated that she waited for some time in order for the light to be just right on the coliseum. I suspect that her experience of waiting, of watching the light change on the coliseum, that expanded sense of awareness of the coliseum as she prepared to photograph it, enabled her to "know" the coliseum at a different level than many of the tourists who may have passed through the structure while she was there. That enhanced sense or depth of experience is, for me, one of the primary reasons why I photograph.

Stephen

I would think that this is maybe even more true for those that excel in composite image-making using photos of reality. Process for them is totally integrated in the making of images.
As mentioned earlier I think that most of us function in an in-between-world where both process and the product, the final photo/image, is what makes us continue to be passionate about photography, whatever our level of excellence in photography and professional engagement.
When it comes to depth I agree to a large degree with John, Fred and Stephen:

For me it is the only objective, worthwhile in photography, but I know that is a somewhat extremist viewpoint.

But then why not look at the POW of Marianna from the point of searching for "depht".
My eyes, I see several elements that could eventually, by some, announce some kind of depth in that image: the over-saturated colors, the tilt, the composition and the subject matter of the image.
Using colors in such a way as done in the POW, in order to play "the strong emotional chord", works without doubt for some, and the great number of top ratings would maybe show exactly their significant presence here on PN. For me, such color choice, leaves me fairly cold. I would be much more inclined to react "emotionally" to a B/W version of the same image content.
If we would have time and patience it would maybe the moment to refer to the theories and ideas behind the Fauvist movement of painting, like practiced be Derain in some of his paintings, but I'm not sure it is of relevance, when discussing this POW. In my eyes the strong colors in the POW are not sufficiently managed and controlled and have little to do with a dimension of depth - unless Marianna or others, are able to explain the use of colors in the POW, in other than technical terms or with reference to the "reality" of the representation.
Other aspect of the POW have been mentioned earlier.
The tilt, for example, can be a means of expressing dephts in image. One could go back to Derain to provide an example of how he used tilts in his paintings, but again I'm not sure it is of high relevance for this discussion. As it is present in this image I'm more inclined to see is something that should have been corrected (again in the centre and not of course at the borders of the frame, due to the wide angle)

When it comes to the composition of the POW, again I have difficulty of seeing how it supports a dimension of depth of the image (apart form of course in a visual sense). The pathway that totally dominates the lower part of the frame, surely leads to the main subject of the scene, the Colosseum, but the least one can say is that the means used for such an objective, is fairly bombastic.

Finally, the Colosseum itself, might be the strongest element of depth in the whole image. However here, due to the use colors, mainly, one almost forget what one is observing: the Roman Empire, inaugurated by Titus in AD 72, the ruins of which could be an appropriate symbol of the Fall of the Roman Empire (AD 472) and maybe even of the fall of Empires in general, leading us up to the present. If that was the role of the subject in the question, I would rather opt for John's image-book that at least supports a direct interest in understanding what we are in fact looking at, in a historical context.

However, I'm not sure that Marianna does not consider the concept of "depth" as fairly irrelevant to her objectives and inspirations for producing such images. She is surely very successful in touching the chord of emotions of a great number of people on PN. For that she should without doubt be celebrated for this POW that also succeed to is provoke an interesting discussion, touching at key questions that should concern us all - and have been discussed over and over again in the Philosophy of Photography forum, by the way.

Dear Marianna, your image well worth being a POW ad the elves been ver selective here and they did a as usual a great job, you and they having my respect.
Jim DeTetour, have just said his opinion about this POW, his personnel opinion and there was No Need, to bring to his attention that this is not a single image, a person comment here depend on how he see this image as a one piece of Art work and accordingly he post his comment, i he like it its his taste and if he do not like it again it is his taste.
It sound here that even that is not allowed by some of those regular commenters of the POW’s, unless every one says what they want, or no one have the right to say anything else.

Quote from one of Marianna's reples.
"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"
It kind of suits me that I was guessing right in my previous comment. I don't understand why in replying to my comment this detail was omitted. I personally have NOTHING AGAINST digital alterations, as long as we call them by name. A manual double exposure done old-style with film and PS merging are just two wonderful techniques, with the same dignity. Nothing wrong in both of them, we should just state we're using them. Cheers Marco

It is a well shot image, it uses most of the rules of photographic composition to focus attention on the subject, which in this case is the ancient Roman monument plus the clouds. I think it is ok. Nice job Marianna and Congratulations (It makes a unique postcard of a place shot many times in other light) Regards
p.s. Well done Elvis for your choice.

"p.s. Well done Elvis for your choice."

Ya gotta love it!

Yes, Fred, but does it have depth.........

I can only hope that next week Elvis picks a bird catching a fish behind a beach on which there is a scantily clad model posing in front of a post card hdr sunset ... now that's depth!

I can only hope the next post be out of the God Father Movie to over rule the sort of Italians God Fathers we have here.

I'm speechless! No point to criticise for me, bravo!

90 comments (this is 91) is pretty good for a POW, and I'm sure the elves are happy with at least the number. I learned something important from this discussion, and that was in the recent posting from Anders Hingel. I will reply to Anders when I have more time (I'm trying to sell my house, and the agents will be coming through tomorrow, just as I've returned from a 6-week photo trip). In a nutshell, I've described photographers as being in one of two camps: those who care about the process as well as the product, and those who are primarily interested in the product regardless of how it was created (this all being in the context of the continuum between photography and digital artistry). I still think that identification of two primary camps has some validity (several commenters have explicitly made that distinction), but the implied notion that digital artists are not concerned with process is, I think, misrepresenting their work and the approach they (or at least some digital artists) take to their work. As usual, a gross generality applied to a large class of photography and photographers is an over-simplification, and when such generalities are made, we're (or I'm) setting ourselves up for an argument. I need to refine my thinking and the way that I present my views on this subject, and this POW discussion has helped in that regard. For that insight, I'm grateful.

I think this is a very well captured, composed and processed image. The colors and light are great and the perspective and composition and glowing arches as well as that magnificent sky- are delightful together as a whole. I don't think there is anything that should 'take away' from the value of the image because it was processed. Of course, people use the tools available to them to create compelling images. If a composite and cannot be identified as such- even better, as it shows that the photographer is talented. To me, it was skillfully edited and the scene that Marianna created was dynamic, bold, interesting, compelling and beautiful.
What is a little disturbing to me is the way that Marianna has been grilled on here - in a very arrogant and insulting and condescending way by some of the posters. I don't understand why. Popularity is not an indication that there is something wrong with Marianna's artistic talent or choices or skills. I admire the way Marianna responded - even when some posters attempted to analyze her attitude as if she were being dismissive. I think this whole POW is a bit of an embarrassing display at times -- not by the photographer who is highlighted -- but by those who critique the image.

I read through the thread and it was interesting. I agree with Stephen's post.

After the initial praises, some of the photographers I appreciate more on photo.net stepped in and debated the impact of this photo.

I don't like this photo, I would not do it myself and, living in Rome, I have never, ever seen the Colosseum like this. It looks like a heavily processed punchy postcard, from a quite ordinary point of view (it is also tilted, btw and it should be straight).

But that's merely my personal opinion and I do not claim this personal opinion has any universal value.

Trying to detach from my personal feelings, which are heavily influenced by my photography and my vision of the world, I however recognise several absolutely positive elements of the this photo:

1. Marianna has studied the place
2. she waited for certain lighting conditions to happen
3. she is probably extremely skilled in using her equipment and the post-processing software (I could not do it!)
4. that this is the result she aimed at and that she likes photographs which look more like paintings than photos, even if the result is unreal to a certain extent
5. that Marianna put great care and work into achieving this result.

And all of this goes absolutely to her merit.

That said, for sure there has been a change in "policy" in selecting the POW. The aesthetics of the visual impact has been modified. If you look at the POW selected in the last ten years this is absolutely evident.

In previous years the aesthetic value and the visual impact were the objective of the Elves.

Now it is discussion, mere discussion. And what makes us discuss more than the contra-position of

• photographers who appreciate strong visual effects and colours resulting from digital elaboration (starting from the software in the camera), and
• photographers more interested in content and the overall compositional balance of a picture?

Anne

Either Anne has not understood or some of the contributors to this discussion have formulated themselves fairly badly. At least I have not had any intention of insulting Marianna and I don't believe anybody has had that in mind. What has been the subject of the discussion has not been Marianna as a person and not even as a photographer, but her photo, "Defying time", that here has been selected as a POW.

Some of us, me included, believe that much critic can be formulated on the photo and its various features and especially on the very saturated colors that represent, in the eyes of some, a tendency of image-making, that, again, some of us would strongly criticize. This is an honest discussion that I think has been worthwhile, and I hope that at least Marianna has read the various contributions in that spirit. She obviously disagrees on the critiques, but it is an honest discussion that we all should be ready to confront.

On the other hand I follow the argument of Luca. He is right that we could have put some more emphasis on the merits of Marianna as concerns her approach to realizing her project, which many indeed could be inspired by.

Anders, I agree with you in that I think Luca's contribution to the dialogue has raised the level, while retaining a spirit of humility and respect. He flat out says his critique is informed - correctly - by nothing more than his preferences, i.e., his personal taste. And that is the only thing that can truly be said about any critique offered here.

I acknowledge that there must be a wide divergence not only of views, but more importantly, photographic skills, experience and technical and other types of talent.

But the key thing is that some posters here seem to forget that their views are really only most importantly informed by personal preferences regarding their aesthetic. For example, someone who derides over saturation or points of view that seem re-hashed or common may in their own work display washed out images that are not very interesting to others.

I am no expert. I come here to learn. But I question how the types of discussions I have seen on occasion here - including this one - encourage open and participatory discussion. If I had been Marianna - and i do not have her talent or skills - I would have been tempted not to reply at all.

The tone of the discussions here can be overly harsh regarding the work. And that is why I responded as I did about the person. Because, of course, the work is what should be the subject. But it felt to me - and this is subjective - that the person behind the work was being insulted and critiqued in a way that was not called for.

I do not know Marianna and maybe she does not feel the way I do. But I feel that the level of discourse was dismissive of her and her accomplishment here.

Maybe it's just me. And I am rather new here. I have a lot to learn and that is my goal. But when I see threads like this and some others, it makes me feel that divergent viewpoints and ways of expressing and creating are not respected as they should be. Whatever though - it's my personal taste again - that I would prefer not to be so presumptuous - even if I were to have the technical skills to think I could be - that I would be so dismissive of another and the work that they have done, cared to share and beyond that - for which there has been popular support - which is no dishonor. In fact, it is a measure of quality and value here. In other words, we are not all morons who are commenting on and rating photos here.