Untitled

When I first looked at the photo, the rays of sun streaming thru the mist really captured my attention. But as I continued to view the image, I was left wanting something to focus on and hold my attention. Alas there was nothing to be found. Reading thru the comments, I was struck by the number of people wondering about the "see thru" tree trunk. I believe if you look closely at the image you will come to realize that the diagonal tree trunk is actually the shadow of a branch in the right of the image. There are many strong shadows in the image and this is one of them, making the branch appear, by coincidence, to be a tree trunk. The bricks that appear to be visible thru the branch are being highlighted by lens flare.

Not for me I'm afraid. Too many compositional conflicts of interest and opposing, mutually unsympathetic lines, so much so that the detailed discussion of them seems to deny that these are fatal flaws inherent in the shot. Sorry.

That is really a deceptive shadow! It's hard to see where the branch attaches to the tree, and the shadow therefore appears to be a natural extension of the branch to the ground. Sure fooled me.

Shadow, or not, the line made by that branch (and its shadow) make significant contributions to the composition, and they're not wholly positive. That particular branch brings the eye down along the edge of the frame. The diagonal shadow (which we thought was a live trunk) splits the scene as it cuts a dark stripe down the brightness of the scattered sunlight. This makes the image more interesting, perhaps, because these imperfections challenge our perceptions, but I don't think the picture holds in the mind for very long. Is it a picture of light? Or of bricks? Or of an odd shadow? Each is given very nearly the same weight of importance, as I see it. Apparently, it has turned into a picture of the shadow. Better in my opinion, to visit this location at night with a saw, cut the branch off, and return the next morning for another try.

it is a beautiful view of playing light and shadow but i think there is missing the main subject in this frame that it could be a bird , or human or something else . best regards <<<amir49>>>

it doesnt look fake to me at all, that ghost branch in reality is the shadow of the branch, which can be seen to a closer look.
but in my opinion this is still an average photo, nothing more, and also agree that Andris have much better photos here.

I opened the image file and was pleased at what I saw.
Decent composition given the geometry of the place, and really excellent exposure control.
I may have cropped off from the top, where the highlights were very prevalent, but I did not shoot or edit the frame, so it is okay as is. The highlights are not blown.
Good interest level on the subject, and the colors were handled just right.
I read the other comments and decided most were hypercritical, and many just did not understand the transparency of the branch shadow, not that it was important or even of any value to do so.
I like the image very much.

I feel this as POW to be a disappointment. There are countless fog & architectural shots out there. I'm sorry, this does absolutely nothing for me

Love the light rays in this photo. It needs a subject positioned in the bottom left third of the photo to increase interest. The sky is a bit overcast. Congrats.

Andris has extremely good compositional phantom and good Photoshop skills too. Although Elves picked up picture what rises discussions for all these thousands of people who studies POW regularly. My personal revelation would sound like this: If you have skills, eye and willingness to show your pictures, then process them appropriately and hold in respect!
P.S. I can assure other viewers - at least tree is real and I assume it is there even today. :)

This is the first time I have critiqued an image here.  I really like this one a lot.  At first the mist and diffused light makes it feel soft and guazy but the sharp angled hard shadow on the right and the strong light on the brick makes it like 'Sweet and Sour'  soft and hard.  That creates a lot of dramatic tension in the photo and makes my emotional response ambiguous which is not a bad thing.  

After looking at this photograph for only a few seconds, it seemed like I was actually there, and had become a part of the image. Wonderfully done!

second image in the gallery I said "LATVIA!" Then I saw the tag (Riga) and the name Andris - so, yes, Latvia! . . . and while the mood of many of the images reflects the mood of so many images I saw when I lived there, Andris obviously sees beyond that with an eye for detail, for the incongruous, and for the moment . . . great work! (Loti labi!)

I find it to be a nice photograph...but to be quite honest, if it were not for the fact that it has been selected as POW...I'm not sure we'd be giving it a lot of attention. IMO... the photographer has many other very fine pictures in his portfolio that are more worthy of discussion.

Well this image has certainly sparked a great discussion. I'm still uncertain about the work done in it. On looking carefully at the main trunk - with increased contrast - I can see some bleed through of the brickwork - which makes me think that we have a second image superimposed.
The angles seem to be all wrong for the foreground branch to be a shadow of a higher branch (and anyhow, a shadow wouldn't be viewed as a solid object in the foreground against the mist).
The shadows on the immediate foreground bricks could be produced by a secondary overlayed image, and near the top right, branches suddenly disappearing in the mist is consistent with the area above the background building roof line being lost because of background over-exposure. (Ive had the same effect myself when shooting past a building into the sun).
So now that we've had our fun - maybe Andris could put us out of our misery and tell us what really happened!

The shadow reminds me of what I see after a fire has happened, the lingering smoke gives you these extreme shadow the seam to cut through the presence of the photograph. Nicely done.

No, no, no, let's keep talking. This is more fun than being told what it is, and besides, I'm certain Andris will assure us the picture is genuine. But, even if it's not, this is still fun. Attached is a diagram outlining the tree, as I see it through the mist and the jpg pixelation, and the rays of light and shadow. The second ray from the right is the one that continues past the limb that cast it, and goes on at the same angle as the other rays. The rest, the bricks showing through, etc, is illusion, just as illusion makes us think it's a real branch, or another tree because, seriously, what kind of tree would grow like that in that kind of enclosed location, and what caretaker would allow it? If that were a real tree, don't you think it would have been cut down long before reaching this thickness and length? And where are the lower branches?

arguing against the superimposed image theory, or the double exposure, whatever you want to call it, there are no other indications in the image to support that hypothesis that can't be explained by the shadow theory. In other words, no ghost images in the darker bricks and buildings that surround the area in question. Furthermore, no other image in Andris' folders show signs of this technique, but rather it appears he is a "straight" shooter, more or less, and does not routinely combine images, or image parts.

and, if it was a superimposed image, why would a photographer of Andris ability and aesthetics purposely impose such a strong diagonal line across the middle of the frame, a diagonal line, I might add, that does nothing positive for the composition? That doesn't make sense to me.

Rob, as for " branches suddenly disappearing in the mist is consistent with the area above the background building roof line being lost because of background over-exposure." isn't this entirely possible if the roof line were in brighter light?

I offer this also, showing the probable shadow cast by that same branch.

While I certainly understand that there might be interest as to whether the image is all real or not, why is it such a focus? This sort of thing seems to be a regular item here--getting sidetracked as to whether something is real or not. We still have a visual before us that either is working as such or it isn't and in the final analysis, has been presented for consideration as a visual. Certainly, if it looks or feels fake, that is a consideration, however, I don't think determining it is fake is all that important--does, and why, the image work or not is the question before us.

Right now, I feel more like I am reading a subgroup of the CSI convention, the "Solve the mystery" forum! The problem for me, I guess, is that there is absolutely NOTHING in Andris photostream to suggest that he fakes anything and this image would be a masterpiece if it were--nice first try?

6/6
Very nice, good work!

The brick work and the unusual architectural feature (cornice?) on the wall holds some interest. Also the neat brick masonry in the foreground on the deck. The rest I find a little bland and common, sorry. Maybe the contrast is some interest yet there is not much sense of place of the wall section.Or is there.

I'm sorry if my curiosity about the branch/whatever detracted from a more general discussion of the picture's virtues, which I still think are many.

However, as long as we're at it, I just can't quite see in the original how that diagonal branch is attached to the main trunk. Doug's explanation/schematic is one answer, but that really doesn't show up without the yellow lines, to me anyway. The top of the diagonal branch (the "real part" so to speak) seems to float in space, and then the transparent diagonal goes down like a shadow, to be sure, but like an overlay too. No doubt the fog is taking on a more tangible aspect with the shadows and sunlight.