FACTORY Frimmersdorf II - Germany -

I love this for a couple of reasons.

One reason is because no matter how hard I try, I don't seem to be able to do this type of work very well.

For once, I like the absence of detail...here in the foreground of the image. It mirrors the darkness of the sky at the top. For me, it would have worked just as well without the dark border/frame around the image...I feel it gives the image boundaries that aren't needed.

I think it's excellent work, and I'd love to see it even larger than the larger setting on p.net provides.

But this picture is the PoTW, not the series. What moon? What stars?

JDM, the stars are in the upper right corner of this image.

They are? I don't see them at all until I crank up shadow detail a huge amt or bend my monitor screen to a weird angle. Not too obvious or objectionable I think, but whatever bugs you. Still can't see the moon in it.

Well, I can't comment on your monitor I suppose, they are very clear to me, but did I say they were objectionable? The observation I made was that they show no movement, trails, as one might expect from these long exposures. My reference to these works was that they felt rather illustrative and graphic and my thought was that these might have been added from another exposure or just added--or possibly the wind was just strong enough, the emissions heavy enough and the light bright enough that the exposure wasn't long enough to cause the trails(?). Over all, the images just don't seem "real" to me although I don't doubt that they started that way. Just like you referred to the HDR thing, sometimes certain treatments create certain results.

What I found objectionable, if indeed there was anything suggested in that regard, is the white outlines along many of the structures in the shot. This outline is very prevalent along the foliage on the right and continues all around the church--hopefully, you wont have to go through as many contortions to see this. Possibly these are the result of over-sharpening or whatever other procedures were applied here to take this image to such a graphic effect.

Other than that, I think you could have saved a few pixels by just carefully reading what I said originally. Because I see no reason other than for pictorial purposes for this particular treatment of this subject, by researching the set and otherwise, I am left with my own reaction to it, which is not favorable. Sorry if that doesn't coincide with your own view.

Eh? ? ?
As I said already, whatever bugs you. Whether you agree with me or not is of no consequence to me at all, but you do seem to be somewhat the odd man out on this picture. As the rest of us already said, the HD business can be overdone.

So, burn me at the stake......

Only if you truly wish it. I can't understand why you seem so out of joint about this discussion. I can't see that anything I or anyone else said that was any kind of criticism of you. I wrote a total of 13 lines about the issue, not counting quotations. You wrote, well a lot more.

John, I'll bring the marshmallows.

The stars are as obvious as....well..... stars in the sky.

I like this folder more than all of the over the top HDR, but only slightly more. I realize that being an industrial landscape it is suppose to be cold and clinical and on that level the toning works well. The over-sharpening of the buildings seems at odds with the softness of the plumes of smoke. So much so in the case of the black foreground tree line that it gives rise to the feeling they came from elsewhere. I am not trying to open the door for one of those ridiculous ' is it photoshop ?' debates I only mean that the foreground does not feel organic like it belongs in the image. The image is wanting for some character, it is industrial yet it lacks grittiness or personality, instead feeling sterile and aloof. I suppose that could be the entire point, even if it is, I still do not care for the results.

In terms of composition the bright area of the lights at the right hand frame border could use some burning in. Although sometimes having the brightest part of the image at the frame edge can work in this case it doesn't.

JDM I am uncertain about what the number of lines one writes signifies, however I wrote less than John so I will suppose I'm OK?

Gordon, do the words "disproportionate response" convey anything to you? I guess I am just too subtle. Sorry about that. Next time I'll whack you-all with a plank first to get your attention. ;)

Yes they do .

Disproportionate response occurs when you're wrong and the other guy takes too long to explain just how wrong you are :-)

True enough, I'll give you that.
But on the other hand it also occurs when you feel guilty or wrong on some manner and go to disproportionate lengths to rationalize a bad choice.

Guilty or Wrong?--JDM, you really shouldn't feel that way nor feel you need to keep going on and on about it, we are all friends here I think....

This is an interesting image. To me, it speaks in two layers: the foreground is a silhouette of what looks like an old town with a church steeple reaching to the skies, but the entire layer is superimposed by the much larger second layer of some huge industrial complex, blowing opaque smokestacks into the night sky. It is almost like a tale of times past surrendered to the new industrial age with the night cover as a metaphor.
/rant
In any case: interesting and well done!

What I see when I look at this are effects. The smoke is blurred, glowing is made obvious. What we typically might think of as dirty or industrial is made pretty, not through perspective or insight but through technical effect.

If the factory alone had been photographed, it would have been sufficent to provide a good subject. It's the inclusion of the contrasting foreground, however, that - to my mind - gives the image added depth and a nice dash of piquancy. All the light - artificial, as it happens - is on the massively imposing industrial complex in the background, whereas the far smaller human dwellings are cloaked in almost total darkness. The church itself, which would have once been the local landmark, is dwarfed by the towering chimneys, belching their polution into the sky. It's hard to avoid the perhaps disquieting symbolism that such a photo suggests, whether intended or not. It doesn't make the photo better or worse - only more complex and, I think, more interesting.

As a fan of night photography, I can see why Jens chose to forgo a simpler day shot, and it's clearly a crowd pleaser judging from the numbers of views and ratings.

From a technical perspective, this shot would have benefited greatly from another layered shorter exposure to reduce the blooming lights. The composition is pleasant enough with its foreground silhouette, the upper-half reserved for smoke trails and the upper-right stars. The church tower is a bonus.

I suspect this was made with one long exposure and some post processing - at such a wide angle, stars will still appear as point sources with exposures as long as 10-20 seconds; plenty for this shot.

As for the choice of hue, blue is as good as any other and probably closer to viewer expectation.

This is my favorite POTW this year, nice!
How long was this exposure -- 30 secs. or so?
Yes it's sterile but it's original and excellent. Evocative. Industrial.
A winner.

A couple strong points of this graphic are the geographic/geopolitical(?) difference between the foreground's quaint steeple and the power plants massive foot print. It's a compelling thing to think about in the social and cultural sense, at least for me, but my masters degree is in architecture so boring things like that excite me.

What I see as the biggest problem with the image is that the digital makeover that the original photo got doesn't have anything to do with the actually power plant or smoke or anything. It's like putting makeup on the devil. It is strange that the stars don't have trails from the long exposure, and the outlines of some of the stacks is rather bright, so I'm almost inclined to think that the smoke was what was changed, and maybe the sky. In the end, I don't think it really matters what digital manipulations were made, they just don't work for me.

If it weren't color treated, over sharpened, and then gaussian blurred or whatever for the smoke, this image could have been a compelling photo. I feel completely disconnected from the target of the photo and can't really tell what the photographer was going for. With such a pretty treatment of something so dirty, I can't really relate to it or be drawn in.

I like the graphic visually, but only so much as any computer generated image--which sadly, means that after a couple glances I feel like there isn't any reason to look again. I do think it is leaps and bounds better than your crooked HDR images, but those aren't the POW's, so I digress.

When I viewed the larger version of this image, I noticed that the smoke is seriously riddled with waves of contrast lines. Almost reminds me of the days of 256 colors for monitors. I just thought I would throw that out there. Also, those stars are extremely sharp given the type of exposure needed to make the smoke so blurry and thick.

This is what photography is supposed to be about. Fantastic work, continue on your path.

Stunning Capture...... the soft blue colouration of the photo made a great impact on the over-all result. Great Work.

Beautifully done. The slow exposure is spot on for the smoke/steam. I find the inclusion of the church silhouette breaks up the industrial scene nicely

I feel this image has clinical sharpness, with very good control of light and exposure. Fascinating play of light & shade. Somehow, the blue tinge does not appeal to me. Perhaps, a black & white version would have been better. No doubt, it is an admirable creative work.

great composition and lighting. i am a big fan of dark pictures.