InTheLonlyHour - please view larger

Thanks Arthur for the detailed analysis, as you wished enclosed the Original Shot. Happy NEW Year 2016. BR JV
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/18150730-lg.jpg

Thank you Jorg. I can see the value added in your post exposure treatment. The original image is a nice largely centered composition but the overcast sky and the mass of evenly lit trees provide some feeling of mood but work somewhat in limiting drama. Thanks to your Photoshop creation, your original photo gains appreciably in that sense, in my opinion. Happy new photographic quests in 2016!

Jorg, I hope you don't mind if play with your original photo to see whether an extreme B&W representation provides drama in another way. Here is a simple B&W conversion with heavy pedal on the IR effect slider. Exploration only, and in no way intended to question your very fine P of W image. Cheers.

Arthur, thanks for your BW version. It gives an interesting melancholic scene. The IR effects works great. However, the high tension between “life” and “depth” coming from the green tree at the left side and the lit trees at the right side is not pronounced. By the way, its not a Photoshop treatment. I used the free ware: FastStone Image viewer and Perfect Effects Free 9. BR Joerg

For a fine edited image you need a fine original image.

I looked at the two very fine edited images at this page and

remembered this golden rule of photography.

Saad thanks, also to remember us concerning the golden rules not only for photographs also for paintings it makes sense to deal with it. There two well known basic ones: the Rule of Thirds and the Phi Grid divides the frame in a similar way, but makes the middle row and middle column smaller according to the golden ratio, resulting in 1:1.618:1 vertically and 1:1.618:1 horizontally … how to get? I was motivated by your comment to look again for rule models. Found this wonderful mathematical model: GODEL SPIRAL and the FIBANACCI SPIRAL. BR Joerg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_spiral
More practical
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/golden-ratio-photography/
I mean we do it by our inspiration not by caalculations ...

I will be the naysayer here. I look at this and see right past the processing to a fairly boring original photo, one with a large chunk of non-articulated sky running almost down the center, with a focal point that doesn't have much drama or cache, and whose main features are fairly bulky and inelegant trees with branches especially on the right side that are abruptly cut off. The colors and added texture to the sky don't mask that and I don't find them enhancing or particularly enlightening or challenging. I think of this as decor, not unlike a lot of the photos and paintings I see in tourist "galleries" at the San Francisco wharf. I can be a big fan of artistic, conceptual, and sometimes strong post processing, but for me the processing is best when suited to the situation, when kept somewhat within photographic realms, and when it helps interpret or enhance a compelling original photo. I don't see much that's photographic about this image in its final state. It could be a painting, so what recommends it as a photo? I love painting, but I tend to leave painting to the painters and look for something uniquely photographic in the photographs I tend to be attracted to, even when those photographs are strongly influenced by painting styles but not trying to be something they're not.

Jorg, interesting articles on the Golden rule and the two thirds rule for art composition. You are right that their use is best instinctive and not one of calculation or apps. If I am not misinterpreting Fred in his reference to the central focal point, that different form of central composition or even square framing is something that some viewers like and others less so.

Rudolf Arnheim, a former professor of the psychology of art (Harvard, Univ. of Michigan) has analyzed centrally directed compositions in his text "The Power of the Center" over many centuries of art and shows the impact that some such images deliver. Perhaps Fred's lack of attachment to the final photo is mostly based upon this central composition, his opinion of such and the perceived impact, rather than on the post processing.

I agree that painter like photographs are not always successful but while I agree with Fred in that regard I feel that this one is appealing, even if the tonal variations in the original have been overlain with the orange alteration. The original and final products are very different. I would be interested to see what Jorg might do with the left side to right side "live" versus "dead" tree contrast he mentions, using more limited post production alteration to enhance those aspects, while not forgetting the representation of life and peace of the loon or other bird (very small but immediately noticed, which is a plus in this composition) in its center. The simpler final product, and for sure my otherwise somewhat dramatic IR conversion, do not show that contrast in my opinion, but the original image might be interesting for Jorg as a basis for a different image that retains and amplifies other aspects of the original.

Arthur, I'm afraid you've misinterpreted me if you think my problem with the focal point was its being centered or its being part of a square composition. I did talk about the blank sky running vertically almost down the center but its blandness was much more a problem for me than its being close to center. In any case, here, for clarification, is what I wrote about the focal point of the photo: "a focal point that doesn't have much drama or cache." I don't like or dislike square or centered compositions per se. I take each on a case by case basis and don't have a predilection. You'll notice several square formats in my own portfolio and a fair amount of centering as well. Why are you guessing at my motivations for expressing my opinions on the photo, suggesting it may be a predilection against square and/or centered compositions rather than the post processing? Makes no sense to me that you would have a need to re-interpret my comments in such a way. I've been staying away from forums lately here because of just this kind of antagonism. I thought I'd step into a POTW conversation as they at least exclude all the usual bickering found in other forums. But I don't need you or anyone else trying to figure out what I really think. I'd rather be taken at my word.

Jörg ,I do not agree with what Fred have said about this image ,after all ,it is his respected one view.
Let us ask what makes a photo appealing in PN ?
Generally it is the number of viewers (that reflects appeal) and the rating (that is only when it is high it reflect appreciation).
This photo have got 1700 view till now,in a time where the very best images got one hundred view or less in month time period (though being a POW have increased its number of viewers.
And it got a 33 ratings, 5.97/7 and this is a very high rating in PN standard,and you got to believe me that PN members are never ever generous in rating unless the photo deserves such a high rating ,for your knowledge a lot of members have stopped requesting rating saying that requesting a rating is like throwing your photo in a trash,because the photos always get less than what it deserve ,your image got nearly 6 which is very high and reflects the community appreciation.
As for the original image is fairly boring ,I guess not at all,just increase its vibrance to a certain limit and it will pop up .
I am sorry for you to miss understand my previous comment ,English is my second language,and I call for every rule in photography a golden role as slang saying and I do not mean the Golden role of composition,what I meant is this ,To get a fine edited image and result ,you have to have a fine good original image,because you will never get a fine edited image from a bad original image and in this I express my admiration of the original image in contrast to your final result plus the IR version.
Thank you for the links you provided,and upon applying to your image ,they really works in longitudinal axis and transverse one,though to a lesser degree than the longitudinal .

Saad, just to be clear, I'm not here in search of and do not really care much about what's appealing to most people on PN. I'm here to look at and discuss photos and come to them each as I see them and try to be honest in discussing them. I often find myself in disagreement with what tends to be popular on PN, so it should come as no surprise that this photo's popularity on PN is not terribly meaningful to me. One can dismiss my comments since they are divergent from what most people think. That's fine with me. I usually tend to listen a bit more carefully to the one lone voice of disagreement when everyone else is agreeing. But that's just me.

Fred thanks, yes indeed we can ask it is still a photo or it is now a painting? It’s a cropped photo with a treatment: color and texture. Nothing was retouched, or brushed, even no distortion was corrected. The structure of the image is point by point taken by the sensor. Often we are accepting that photographers extremely retouch photos, correct details etc. However, I agree that the final image has a touch of a painting. Have a great 2016. BR JV

Fred, my apologies if I misinterpreted your critique (I remembered your former remarks regarding central compositions), but antagonism (your word!) is far from the intent and I don't know how you could possibly think that. Beyond me. I was the one I think who began a constructive discussion of Jorg's photo (other than earlier very positive acclamations) and if you carefully read my remarks to Jorg and those in regard to your comments you will note I think that the objective is clearly one of discussing various aspects of photography and art and as politely and civily as possible and certainly not what you may think is some form of antagonism. I don't think we can go very far in constructive discussion if you use that type of language in friendly discussion. Best wishes for 2016.

Saad thanks, your treatment suggestion is impressive, but doesn’t reflect the contradiction LIFE-DEPTH strong enough. A great hint from you is your finding that the duck plays a great rule. Its exactly in between and has not only the chance to fly to the depth area and life area: it has a chance to fly in the bright sky to another future (not shown here). That’s the imagination, or isn’t it. BR Joerg

Cropping out some of the right side does remove some visual interest but that I think is more than aptly compensated for by the added impact of the more central composition. I initially took the sky for granted but if it was to disappear and replaced by foliage (or more dramatic sky) one of the losses would likely be the uniform reflection below the duck (or whatever bird) and a loss of that point of interest. Also, a sky with individual clouds would I think obfuscate that and also detract from the simple but effective composition as it is. Just my personal feeling about the result (and these specific points are unchanged in viewing the more "painterly" final representation). Now I have to try and understand Jorg's life-depth relationship, which I thought was just a typo for life-death (the trees on the right appear to have died, just like my dead orangey colored branches of one of my cedars at home, while those of the left look like newly formed branches and this facet of the original image might also be accentuated in post process).

And thank you Jorg for providing your initial image capture and discussing your work. A number of former POWs have received much less discussion from their authors.

Dear all, made now an experiments: only by FastStone image viewer: only shadows, brightness, saturation , contrast changes: no color chanal changes or other changes. BR Joerg
/photodb/photo?photo_id=18151150

Sounds quite interesting Jorg, but the image does not show up on my screen.

The link doesnt work, sorry, hopefully it will be now ...

This photo is clearly in the Art category, as opposed to documentary. Once it is art, then some level of manipulation is certainly appropriate, to the purpose of communicating the vision of the artist/photographer. There are plenty of examples on this site and others of heavily manipulated, combined, and constructed images based in photography, but which one might make a case against as Photography. Jorg's image certainly begins in a basis of photography. His manipulations are far less invasive than we frequently see in the art photography of others. What those manipulations do is convey to us, the viewers, the feelings, perspectives, and experience that Jorg desires to share with us. In my mind, he has done so very successfully, which makes this a successful and effective image, and a piece of art.
My daughter once asked my wife, regarding a piece of abstract sculpture: "What does is mean?" My wife's response: "It's not about what it means, but about how it makes you feel." This can be true of virtually any piece of art, not the least Jorg's image. Whether or not Fred likes it, either technically or aesthetically, it clearly is effective in eliciting emotional and aesthetic responses from many people. There are many photos on this site that receive high marks and kudos from others, but which I personally do not find engaging or attractive. This is not a dig at Fred. Some of my favorite images in my own portfolio receive little attention, while I wonder why some get the attention they do. Perhaps it is because I know what it took to see, capture, and process my favorites, while others do not. So be it. That's art, and ever will be. I still say this is an excellent and engaging image, and I congratulate Jorg in its making.

If you open up the shadows a bit more and apply white balance to the clouds to reduce saturation of your recent experiment, the result is as follows. A question of subjective appreciation, perhaps, but I think that the result shows the marked difference between the healthy trees and those that seem to have been attacked (as the leafless branches seem to show).

This may not be your aim of an experiment to produce another image from the original photo. Your experiment yields a more mysterious or brooding atmosphere than that below. Perhaps Fred's point regarding absence of drama or impact in the original is maintained in these modifications. We all see different things or place different values on acknowledged points of interest in an image. My own approach is one to prefer fairly minimalist compositions, which I guess is one reason I find very appealing the uniform simplicity of your POW image.

Fred,I quite understand you.I wrote that PN statistics because I do believe that art including photography

is directed to the whole community rather than an individual except in very rare cases like literature and

poetry.

David, thats a great statement: It's not about what it means, but about how it makes you feel, best regards to your wife! JV

Arthur , thanks for the experiment. Yes indeed “ the result shows the marked difference between the healthy trees and those that seem to have been attacked (as the leafless branches seem to show).” We have been creating different versions including BW. It is a great learning process. I agree “Perhaps Fred's point regarding absence of drama or impact in the original is maintained in these modifications “. BR JV

Congratulations, Joerg, on finally getting the recognition that you deserve.

The comments above show once again that it is what we bring to the picture that overwhelmingly determine our response to it. Perhaps it is because of the opportunities I had as a child and young teenager to roam far and wide through country like this, but this one feels very nice and natural to me. I am talking about the original shot, of course. I like the one presented as Photo of the Week even better, and it does show the full impact that is possible with skillful processing. It also has a painterly quality that I find very appealing. I would definitely hang this one on my wall--and leave it there.

Very nice work, Joerg!

--Lannie