InTheLonlyHour - please view larger

Fred, I'll stick my neck out here; I think you overreacted to Arthur. To pose a frequently asked question - doesn't it help

sometimes to clarify a photographer's intent regarding an image? For a viewer, can't this sometimes lead to a better

perspective on that image?

Dear Lannie, thanks for the commrnt. I will mail you the file, if you interested in it. It will be a great pleasure if you will have it on a wall! Might be a pohoto canvas will work best. BR Joerg

Dear Michael, yes indeed thats a basic question to ask - always! BR JV

Languid in a cloying fashion. The sort of thing I would like to look at printed big in my dentist's office, while waiting for a root canal.

Endof, thanks, your comment made me smiling. BR JV

What I think we can say is that this thread does demonstrate the often central role that post processing plays in modern photography. The straight shot is dull indeed, but the presented image reminds me of the Barbizon school in its colors and intent (although no rustic figures) which I guess is a good thing. Arthur's black and white rendition is also appealing.

The lyrical or romantic view of nature is perhaps hard to do with straight photography without post exposure. Or is it, maybe that might be a good subject for a future discussion? Looking at some of the paintings of Barbizon, like T. Rousseau's 1850 Barbizon landscape with its yellow-orange tones, or Daubigny's Rising Moon, brings Robin Smith's point really home. Inspired by John Constable, the later movement at Barbizon took the close to nature and evocative Constable approach (realism without formalism which Corot put into a French context) and applied it with more subjective freely perceived warm colors that perhaps J.M.W. Turner had initially shown fellow artists decades earlier. Jorg's photo has a color palette that is similar to some of those images.

It is said that we are always comparing new experiences to the bank of images or knowledge we carry in our minds. So probably are many artists and photographers. There is a warehouse of already seen images that I am inspired by and wish in some cases to produce in part in my own way. Whether, or how, this influenced Jorg in his Photoshop creation I don't know, but such influences can be good as Robin mentions. And quite naturally, the results can be appreciated in very different ways by us. There is no right way, except that of the particular viewer.

I have to go to the dentist this month, but unlike Endof's possibility, she already has her own large painting on the wall. Distracting, but not quite as peaceful.

Robin, thanks, also for the mentioning the school. I was looking in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbizon_school. BR Joerg

Arthur,, thanks, yes its a main question to ask: what are the differences between “pure” photographs, corrected photographs, treated photographs or even manipulated photographs and paintings?
Let me try to define the difference between treated photographs and paintings.
Treated photograph: The dominating detail information and the total structure were on the film (sensor) in a single shot, only a substructure is added. A painting ? We know what it is.
Good luck when visiting the dentist!
By the way, everyone can get InTheLonlyHour for free if I have a working e-mail. It will be a great pleasure if it will be on walls around the world. BR JV

Jörg, sorry but the system wouldn't allow me to respond to the internal message you sent. I've had problems with my email getting hacked so I don't give out my email address. I am grateful for your offer, and perhaps you could post on this thread a larger version of the file from which I could derive a print. Happy New Year to you and yours.

Michael, first of all Happy New Year 2016 to you and your family. I will try to find out the maximum size via photonet upload. BR JV

Jörg, sorry - but I don't use dropbox.

Michael, now the largest version is in UploadForComment: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=18153431