Bay solitude.

Chic . . . Chique

minimal!

superb!

Wonderful .

Clever composition, superb minimalistic photo. Agree with the framing issue.

I also agree on the framing, but a very nice high-contrast composition.

excellent shot-shows great patience!

I like it. miss shots like that. I kind of agree on the framimg ...maybe too invasive other than that a nice fragil sensitive shot/

Proves the theory that less is more.

superb composition ..

Great shot, 7/7 although frame bothers me, take it away and it will be perfect,. stay with the photo as a piece of art,

I may be alone here, but I like the border. It makes me think of fog, which adds to the scene. Excellent!

beautiful composotion here, minimalistic photo and very aesthetic, bravo

One word: WOW! 7/7 (and I never 'fess up to ANY rating)...

Fantastic light and atmosphere. Wonderful image. 7/7

Splendid in its essence. It speaks of immensity.

Agnes, i "discovered" your work at Usefilm, nice to see you here. Very very original and superbe execution of your idea. Much white, much emotion.

Anne, clearly you're a very good photographer, as evidenced by your portfolio, but I have to ask: how much of this image is an actual photo and how much has been digitally created?

 

I ask because the bird on the right and the one on the left appear to be exact copies. This strikes me as important since without this context I have a hard time evaluating the image.

 

wonderful shot.A masterpiece of graphic design imho. 7/7

I'm very dissapointed when somebody is misleading people about how great photographers they are.. It even fooled me, but after SP brought my attention to it, he is right. I have no problems if images are digitally "remastered" but that fact should be pointed out and explained what was done to the picture and why. (Similar situation was with my image "Kids Play, take#2" I did manipulation in PS, but I explained why I did it and how was done.) Just to prove the point, I brought the bird from right next to the bird on left and I turned it around, and guess what, it's the same bird. I'm including image for other people to compare. I wonder, how many other objects in this shot were "borrowed" from other images? If there is any doubt, how come that light can fall on the same side of the bird, if two birds are in totaly different positions towards the sun?

Shame on you Anne for misleading people about the photo!! I re-evaluated my ratings and I gave you 1/1 for this photo (I never give such a low ratings), but you deserved it. It's not a photo but piece of graphic design. Also, to ask to rate this "piece" as a photograph it's an insult to all other photographers that spend lots of effort and time outdoors to capture images in real situations.

 

 

 

Mario, in defense of Anne, if you click on the Details tab you will see that the "Manipulated?" field is listed as "Unknown or Yes".

 

That being said however, I too was disappointed that no mention of the obvious cloning was offered. This is a piece of "graphic design" as David aptly describes it, and providing that context is necessary for a proper understanding and appreciation of this image.

 

Considering that this is a photography site, it's alarming to me that so many people either don't seem to notice or worse yet, don't seem to care about this important distinction.

Yes, I checked Details. Also, when looking at the third bird more carefully, you can notice light on it's tail, which means that was imported from another shot as well. So, end result is not photograph, but piece graphic design, which, regardless how may well be done, it's still a graphic design, not a photo.

Personnally I don't care at all how the image was created, with cut and paste in photoshop, multiple exposures or sandwich printing. Image manipulation has been around forever. PS is just another tool to achieve it. This is still a photograph imho, a beautiful image created by photographic means. Plus Anne did not mislead us as she did not state that the image was unmanipulated. I reiterate my praise of your picture, Anne, and would rate it again 7/7 if I could. Don't worry about the Luddites who are around Photo.net, just keep on creating beautiful images !

That "so what" makes a difference between art, master and just avarage everyday amateur,.

David, would you care if an image was created entirely outside of a camera? If it were constructed simply as product of "clip art" and Photoshop? Would the image still be a photograph? It wouldn't to me.

There is a line between what I consider a photograph and a piece of graphic design.

And while I imagine it might be difficult to get a group of artists (an all inclusive term) to agree exactly where where the line should be drawn, I think most would agree that it at least exists.

Mario already pointed out the what immediately caught my attention: the contradictory lighting on the birds. This should be obvious and important to anyone with a critical eye.

I had almost same conversation about year ago, but genleman explained himself very well why he did it and how. I see absence of comment from Anne. Please check:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2257721