Untitled

I think Doug's right; it's easier to see with the image darkened. The branch in question appears to be growing toward the camera thus appearing darker due to the angle of the sun.

It certainly is weird that there is so much hypothesis on what Andri S actually did and stranger still that he is not clarifying.

There is a lovely mood with these rays of light between these two buildings in red bricks. I like much this idea.
However, I guess this image is a montage of two photos layer on layer.
First, the evident transprency of the tree trunk.
And second, you can see in the red square I notice a not continued line of the vertical wall on the upper right side.
And the little branches in the sky stop their drawing by a straight oblique line.
I have nothing against a reworked work but it is necessary to bring a great care for it being perfect and not appears on the picture.
Each artist has his own way to create but great skills are required.
all my best regards
Marielou

Very powerful elements are working together in this photograph. However, in my opinion the photo lacks a real point of interest. Ultimately there would be a figure standing in that shaft of light. Even an inanimate object such as an old, deflated basketball would turn this photograph into a real work of art. If you can reshoot - go for it.

I wish the discussion of the POW could center on more substantial issues, such as lighting, composition, and overall interpretations, rather than guesses and theories as to whether it is a composite or the degree of digital alteration it has undergone. Either it is or it isn't, and Andris could put this rather fruitless back-and-forth to reset immediately with an honest response.

Stephen, I suspect Andris took the shot precisely because of the branch illusion thus making its discussion entirely relevant and interesting, particularly when viewers are (or might be) fooled. If that's indeed the case, then it almost makes everything else integral but superfluous to the picture.

As someone who doesn't have much skill with post processing, I have to say if you can do it convincingly then good for you. unless the alteration is so obvious that in enters the realms of digital art then it doesn't really concern me. Having said that, i don't think this photo has been altered. the dark diagonal shadow is simply more obvious when contrasting the light in the mist against the dark background of the branch and therefore seems to "obscure" the view of the branch.
I may be wrong, but that brings me to part 2 of my comment, which is that the discussion about the shadow detracts from the fact that this is a photo with very little visual impact. the shadows and buildings are briefly interesting, but nothing grabs you and says "look at me" had i seen the thumbnail of tis photo in between some of the excellent photos in the photographers portfolio I wouldn't have given it a second glance and that for me is what defines it. ok technically (except for the lackof a focal point of interest) ok to look at, but nothing special.

Michael, as I mentioned as well, I see this as totally irrelevant. What is relevant is how the image impacts the viewer and that certainly can include the sense of this being an illusion or a falsehood. As I said above, there is nothing in Andris portfolio to suggest that he does composites or "creates" his images in photoshop, so the whole argument is sort of baseless. But even when real, sometimes these sorts of anomalies can cause an image to be discordant and so fair game in rendering an opinion regarding an image. I suppose I understand it on one level, this witch hunt (this isn't taken in Salem by any chance?), but I think it more fair to talk about the image than be consumed playing detective.

In Marielou's comments and image, there is nothing at all incongruous there, and such "evidence" is shallow at best, as there are all sorts of reasons for this sort of break in the real world.

The problem is that digital has introduced this sense of a photograph being dishonest until proven honest and it is sort of sickening, really. What I see too many times here is a sort of mindset that if it is fake, it is not good when in some cases, there are very moving visuals presented--and often times maligned, as here, with false accusations.

The original area JDM points out is most likely an optical illusion but could also be some cloning(of the bricks not the branch). But as cloning, it is just a bit too normal looking with what was available as source material. A great retoucher could do all of this, but we wouldn't be finding these perceived flaws it it was done by a great retoucher! A composite of this complexity would need a great retoucher IMO, even to get it to work on any level. If someone was that good, there would be plenty of examples in their portfolio.

It is true that Andris could resolve all of this, but if I were he, I would be laughing my rear-end off....

Photography, unlike other visual arts (painting, sculpture, graphics, etc.) is tied to the "real" world as the lens focuses on actual objects in the world as the raw materials for photographs. So, in that sense, it seems appropriate that there is a tie to what occurred in the real world that helped provide the foundation for the vision of the photographer. Some pictures make me aware of the real-world situation more than others. A landscape, for example, where I sensed the mountains were cloned in against the water, would lose much of its interest to me, unless the photographer was somehow making an obvious collage and utilizing the craft of collage to make his/her vision statement. I'm a big fan of Man Ray who (long before digital made it easier) utilized all kinds of photographic "tricks" to advance his vision. The question of the "truthfulness" or "accuracy" of photos has been around since photography's inception. This scene does want to transport me to the unique conditions (haze, sunlight, building formations) that created it. Part of its specialness would be the elements that came together to provide it. Pondering whether those were put together by the photographer after the shot or whether they came together all in the moment of shooting seems reasonable here and would seem to change how the photograph strikes me. Not all photographs make me mindful of such things, but this one does.

I also agree that a lot of energy is being spent on this aspect and that may, in itself, say something about the image. It's not compelling enough, for me, to warrant a whole lot of notice or discussion in its own right. I agree with others who have found it lacking. It's missing a MACGUFFIN.

John, not every picture rises to the level of high art (and I don't believe Andris intended this as such), so taking it for what it might have been, a happenstance, then this picture is about as good as most experienced photographer would have snapped it given the numbers of obvious constraints. While many might not have chosen to show it (had it been theirs), Andris did; bravo.

"While many might not have chosen to show it (had it been theirs), Andris did; bravo." I guess I am not really sure what that is supposed to mean? I think if an image is not up to par, and we know it, we shouldn't post it, but maybe that is just me.

I said in my first entry here that what I didn't see was anything in Andris' portfolio that supported this approach to a photograph. Fred has now illuminated what I meant by that with his comment about the macguffin. Had there been a series of images done in this way, where one might see these as a "setting" for some pending action, I think, with others done with this intensity, it might have the chance of being a brilliant body of work. Without the support of others, it appears more the exercise I alluded to above.

I don't think photographs always have to be contained in the frame or be an entertainment unto themselves, but there can be an idea or conceptual premise that can make an image of this sort rise above the more generally accepted image in meaning and artistic quality, but it does take more than one image and the courage to make it happen. To those people, I certainly add my own Bravo!

Wonderful atmosphere and impression, but for me a diagonal branch stands artificially and distorts the magic.

Fantastic.  Showed it to my wife and she too absolutely loved it.  Lighting, texture, contrast, composition all great.  This would look wonderful enlarged and framed.  Great job!

John A, you said: "I think if an image is not up to par, and we know it, we shouldn't post it..."
I think you may be missing a valuable aspect to photo.net if this is what you truly practice. Many of the images I post are purposefully unfinished, and "sub par" because I'm trying to determine where in my process I need to go next. Not that my finished pieces are worthy of the photo.net front page, but I often get very helpful feedback regarding images, or image projects, that I'm working on. I don't see photo.net as a purely display only site. I guess if I did, I wouldn't put anything in the critique forum.

Doug, I definately agree with your post re John A's comment "I think if an image is not up to par, and we know it, we shouldn't post it..."
For me the whole joy of being part of photo.net is that I can post images which I am 100% certain are not up to the standards of the photographers in these forums, and that I can get valuable feedback and try to improve. Occasionally I am surprised by a very positive critique or a comment about something I did well or a favourable rating from a top photographer, but for me its not about displaying perfect photos. I just don't shoot any perfect photos !
for me its about improving, not impressing...

Like the light and details in this, it keeps you looking to see more.

works well for me

Very cool.In any way.The mist strenghthens the light, looks like solid.The metering is very accurate there are no extremely over or under exposed parts in the frame.The color is nice and soft as expected.Regards

a very good light metering!

I happened to take a look at this photograph for a second time...and find that many of the initial comments made when it was named POW have mysteriously disappeared.  What's up with that?

Wonderful mood and light!

Beautiful composition.