Aspen Gold

Thanks to all for the comments on my image! This image was actually taken with a Nikon fish-eye lens, and was not created or manipulated in Photoshop! I see some people don't like it, but the majority do. As for the darker/shadowed portion on the bottom left of the image, this lens has such a wide angle of view that is difficult to keep yourself, the sun, and your shadow out of the image! I moved as much as I could to remove most of my shadow without ruining the composition I was trying to get. I am glad most of you enjoyed my image with a different perspective, which was what I was trying to accomplish in the first place.

Curtis may have had unanimous praise if he had used an 18mm to converge but not bend the trees, and still pick up some of the fallen leaves. The typhoon look bent trees look too unnatural, and thus the feeling of harmony in the pix. is lost, however stunning the colors.

Warm congratulation Curtis for POW. I like your new ways of seeing things.. let me guess, you have incidentally slipped on the ground and look towards the sky .. and then you discovered this new perspective :)

 

I'm going to re-visit my photo routes on an armchair !! Your image is truely innovative., simple tool but knock-on effect !

This image is eye-catching, no doubt. When I asked myself what about this caught my

eye, though, something happened. I realized I didn't like this photo at all. At first, the

velvia-like colors pop and the qwerky perspective is ooo-la-la. After a short time, though,

I noticed the shadow in the corner, the poo-brown base of the tree, and a forced(albeit

novel) use of a lens that just doesn't seem to fit.

Amazing picture. Love the perspective.

I enjoy the shot...my only thought is to have shot a little less of the fallen leaves, I feel that balance would work better for me. The colours and trunk placement are exceptional. My eyes follow right up the photo...good use of the tools in your camera case and great vision. The effect is only to extreme if you desire to capture only what is...I prefer to leave room for imagination in art.

. . . another interesting view of the "reality".

Great shot! Now we know how a frog sees the reality. I would be grateful for more technical details (about camera and wideconverter used, if any)

I'm with Kelly. Initial impression was that this could be a great photo but once I looked closer I too realized that I didn't like it.

The shadows in the lower left, the composition in general, the brown gnarled area on the trunks of the trees chosen to photograph. Sorry, I simply feel that it's just not a very strong photograph.

I like this point of vue... from a very small critter!

 

I usually carry a small tarp when I walk about the great outdoors, just in case I see something this striking. Nothing is perfect until it has been perfected by man. I do appreciate every little parts of this picture: the shadow, the brown patch on the tree, everything!

 

I would not hesitate to stick a framed 24X36 on my wall... just love everything about this picture:)

 

Congrats

 

JB

This is one of the best images I have ever seen. I have seem similar images and have even taken a few myself, but none have been as successful as this image. EXCELLENT perspective, great color and contrast, nice lighting.

I actually like the photo, Curtis, but was interested in your pointing out that it was not manipulated in Photoshop. That is relevant to me. Even so, it is manipulated optically, which likewise is relevant (but not repugnant) to me. I am puzzled that persons who are okay with optical manipulation, which clearly distorts what we see, are so averse to the use of Photoshop, which can be used to distort--or not. It can also be used to make pictures TRUER to what we actually saw, as in the case of my Olympus E-20, which usually gives files which come out of the camera requiring a bit more saturation and sharpening before they are accurate as representations of reality. I think that checking off "Not manipulated" should be a matter of the spirit of accurate representation, with the understanding that (for many of us) an inaccurate representation may also have its merits.

 

Your picture is not an accurate representation of what one sees, and is thus to me "manipulated."

 

It is also a work of art, in my opinion.

Everyone has their own opinion, including me, and I respect them all fully. Wide angle lenses have distortion and this fish-eye lens is the extreme. I have read the information on "Unmanipulated Photos" on this site several times and I decided according to the guidelines that I should post this image as unmanipulated. However, I do think that this image that was taken with a lens with severe distortion, is manipulated in a different sort of way. In the guidelines of "Unmanipulated Photos", it is stated "No use of perspective correction tools is allowed". I did not think my image would have this much discussion of "what is" and "what is not" considered a manipulated photo. Also, while I am on the subject, telephoto lenses distort what we actually see by compressing objects closer together than they actually are. This is also not an accurate representation of what we see with our vision. Also, black and white images aren't either. I like black and white photography. It is, to me, another form of photographic art. Ansel Adams was the greatest!

It's not difficult to get this kind of shot with the right lens. Don't get me wrong, I love the colors, I really don't see anything outstanding about this shot.

I don't really like the effect, seems disorienting. Prefer a more linear world. Photo woould be plenty beautiful enough without all the curvature of space.

The colors and lines definitely caught my attention immediately! Great shot! However, IMHO, the distortion and polarizing effects fade rapidly in the viewers taste, I mean, they are great for that eye-catch thing, but then, you need other images to trully captivate/retain the viewers attention. Great eye-catching shot.

I suspect that any time you use a fisheye you'll run into this extreme contrast of opinion! Comments from... "If you like this, I suggest dying brown bears purple." -J. Bundick ... "too many {other} fish-eye photos... with not enough consideration for the special properties of a fish-eye." -S.Hosler

 

I'm with the lovin' it crowd on this one, particularly because I've seen so many pictures of aspens that had rich color but little compositional interest - this one is fresh.

 

To try to answer Lannie Kelley, why some of us approve of lens manipulation but disdain Photoshop - let me try to explain my own reasons: I think with a photograph the photographer shares his experience at the scene, and the decisions made at the scene reflect the conditions and feelings there... condensing breath in cold air, the crunch of leaves underfoot, the patience to wait for the right light to press the shutter... I feel I lose that connection with the photograph when it is rearranged from a desk chair.

 

This is not meant to flame the photoshoppers out there! (btw, I'm well trained in photoshop for other professional stuff, just not my photography.) I'm just trying to clarify our different approaches, which are as broad as those that love and hate the fisheye in this shot. It's all good for some and not others.

 

cheers,

Its very cool looking, but than it's digital,to bad.

I like this. It drew me right in. It could be a little too much. It is quite beautiful. Images like this can seem very strange to us because it is just not what we see everday. But what if we did, how would you feel about it then?

I don't necessarily think so. It is somewhat similar to the way the human eye sees in a wide angle situation. Hold a piece of paper (preferably larger than 8.5x11) "landscape" fairly close in front of your eyes. Looks "normal", right? Move it either right or left and notice how the top and bottom edges start to converge when moving it laterally. It appears our eyes have a similar natural fisheye distortion/perspective. Our eyes can't correct this natural perspective. I know peoples' views differ - this is just mine. Besides, I like my fisheye, and I like this image...

I like this shot. So beautifully composed with some lovely colors. And to me, this image is UNMANIUPLATED. God knows, what shall happen if everyone uses a KODAK 400 with 50mm prime lens, to make them "This is the reality" shot. This one is great. Curtis, I saw your other photographs too, and they are just awesome !!! Way to Go !!

I agree with the issue with the shadow. A near perfect shot if only that lower corner wasn't so dark.

 

I don't think that this picture would have been chosen as picture of the week if you hadn't used the fish-eye. It shows a different perspective and makes this one stand out.

For me, it's a tad too "manufactured." A curiosity, not a work of photographic art. But hey, I am personally not capable of photography at this high level, so my mind remains open. A beautiful image, that's for sure.

Seems like a lot of people like this. I don't see the draw.

 

The photo's "strongpoints", the fishy lens and hypercolor, are more like weakpoints, to me. It's like stuff I thought was cool before I tried using a fisheye then I realized it's too gimmicky. If this shot was with taken without the lens it would be average...adding this lens, to me, doesn't change anything.

Curtis....this is very nice! The first thing I saw was an umbrella with rain

running off of it, a compostition within a compostion. Yes, we all know that

fisheyes can be "gimmicky", but it would be extremely unfair to brand any

image created with a fisheye as such. Wonderful composition and excellent

choice of lenses. Congratulations on making POW, it's well deserved!