Someone Watching

I think part of this image was created, not captured in the camera. Still, a well done work of art.

very good picture and title

I'm probably going to get slated for this, but I don't like it. I think it has been too manipulated. There is no subtly to it. I can understand that it looks like a striking photograph, but I think if it had been more subtly done, it would have been more effective.

 

Yeah, David says it is not manipulated (in the details section), but frankly, I don't buy it either. Which is a shame, because it really is a great photo even if it is manipulated. I hope he just accidentally checked the unmanipulated box or something like that. (And really, what would be the point in lying about it?)

If we could magnify the image a hundredfold I think we might see Mr. Bean lying on the deck of the sailboat.

Have just got home after a very busy first week back at work after my holiday - so sorry for the delay in replying.

 

Oh my goodness what a debate! Absolutely manipulated.

 

I was standing on a breakwater about 300 feet from the shore when I saw the boat so I took photo number 1 - about 3 minutes later (at which point in time the boat was to the extreme left of the finished shot)the sun broke through the clouds and I took photo 2 (attached), At that point I expected to hear a choir of angels , but it was very, very quiet.

 

I combined the shots to make the finished photo/picture.

 

Very many thanks for your kind comments - sorry for checking the box - it was a genuine mistake.

I think that this is not manipulation but combination and it is a technique that has been used in film for ages. IMHO it would be less of an image if these elements did not occur naturally but in your case they did. You should be congratulated on your ability to even see the opportunity to take that shots that allowed for the combination to occur.

 

I should be so lucky to identify such opportunities.

 

Good job.

Impressive image, with this cannon of light in the middle of the storm. A greeting.

Thanks, David for the clarification. I had assumed that the boat was a seperate shot combined. And yes, this is still a great 'image'. And yes, Brett ... this is manipulation ... but this is a topic for a different forum and should not take away from David's image.

Whatever one may say, ultimately this a beautiful image. Congratulations for your statement and effort.

Beautiful shot.

Since you described the manipulation and there is a request for the photo of the week or the year (sorry, can't remember the names), let's start to debate on THE point :

Why did you put the boat under the sunray ?

Why you, all people who gave a high rate to this picture, want to see the sunray falling on the boat ?

 

Magic spirit, magic moment, magic colors, thanks for help to forget the future and the past ;-)

 

Pilou Face

This is dangerously close to being the kind of shot you'd find on one of those inspirational/religious calendars, but it's NOT. It's less cheesy and has more soul and still feels natural unlike those ultra-doctored moody photos--it is nature afterall, just rearranged by a human with a good eye. Phew, that was close! Good job.

Why? Why not? Works for me.

So let's just call this double exposure, but taken in two frames. The two images occurred, just not simultaneously, unfortunately for David. If the sun rays had been fabricated in PS, that would be another story. This brings me back to a comment I posed in the feedback forum some time ago regarding the confusion the manipulation box causes. Who's to know if it has been checked in error, or forgotten entirely. It's better just to put the info in the technical details. It's a lovely image, but I agree about cropping off some of the bright areas in the clouds, and perhaps level the horizon. (or is that an optical illusion?)

Hanna, there should be no confusion when checking the "unmanipulated" box. It points to http://www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation.html which quite clearly states, "The image should be the result of a single exposure (shutter release) by the camera."

 

I think the definition covers pretty much everything.

 

The current use of a single box to describe "manipulated or unknown" is a good way to implement it. The author of the photo should certainly know whether it's manipulated or not, so having a separate box for "manipulated" is redundant.

Rob, I didn't mean it caused confusion for the photographer. The instructions are clear enough. I meant it caused confusion for the viewer because of this very situation that someone forgets to check it or not check it. Nor did I mean to say I felt it was an unmanipulated image. I simply felt that it was more realistic than if an element which did not exist in the scene had been created in PS. Sorry for not making myself clear.

The new guy thinks the combination of photos has led to one of the most brilliant photos I've ever seen. Very well done!

This is the same shot that was used in the closing credits of John Boorman's Excalibur(1981). But his boat was carrying King Arthur. I think you've done a fine job here. Very nice work!

Lovely. The boat is going to be beamed up apparently :-)

extreme photo is beautiful landscape

IMHO... First impression is what works for me. Initial impact captivated and grabbed my attention. Did I wonder if it was real?? OF COURSE IT IS REAL, I'M LOOKING AT IT!!! Is it a medical documentation, police or insurance evidence photo? It is both photography and art and isn't that what Photo Net is for? 7/7