The warwick river sunset

Forty years ago, I would have liked this. I would have bought it from a bin in a beachfront souvenir shop for $5.95, taken it home, and tacked it to a wall in my bachelor apartment. But now? No, just no. I don't have anything else to say about this one.

Like catching lightning in a bottle, a superb photographic achievement, and well worth the honor.

A pretty image with nice colors . . . not much else to say.

I pretty much concur with what John A wrote before, and also envision the crop that Arthur suggested would maybe be more exciting. As it is, it's an image I see and then I go on doing something else. I can't really find things to say in favour of it beyond "nice", neither can I find much to say against it - except for the frame. In general, I am no big fan of adding frames to files, but his one just looks too plastic to me. It doesn't add a single thing, if anything, it detracts.
Other than that: nice. But it doesn't move me at all.

I like the photograph, and I think there is a lot of luck involved in getting the birds in a good (aesthetic) position and in the best point in the cycle of wing beats. Often luck is another term for persistence. It's not something I would have thought of, but I do like Arthur's suggestion to crop this differently to present a composition that is much less often seen and one that puts more emphasis on the birds. It's comments like Arthur's that add so much to discussions on PN (and certainly many others make similar positive contributions).

I like this picture. It's simplicity of design, content and warm color tone is easy to read and it feels soothing to me somehow. I don't think all images need to be dynamic, detailed or tax my intellect. Sometimes brick simple is good. This crop reminds of a book jacket layout or similar print project expecting type. I think there are many possible crop opportunities due to it's simplicity. A good stock image I think.

What I don't like, really a just a personal peeve of mine, is the hokey digital frame. I don't mind all frames or pre-made edge treatments but those fake drop shadow ones I find more distracting and take up a fair amount of image real estate. Some folks love them, I don't.

I'm with Louis, this is a great stock image and I can see it gracing the walls of travel agencies or Travel Magazine. To that end it's a successful image that evokes a feeling of wanting to be there. Very well done... Mike

I'm with Louis, this is a great stock image and I can see it gracing the walls of travel agencies or Travel Magazine. To that end it's a successful image that evokes a feeling of wanting to be there. Very well done... Mike

Sorry, in my old age I tend to repeat myself ;-)... Mike

For many, whether the birds are shopped in from other shots might not matter. I am sure any commercial application would render that issue irrelevant.

I would just like to know. Admittedly, maybe it does not matter, but I would just like to know. The birds are almost a bit too perfect for me.

--Lannie

Lannie, I am not picking on you here, but I generally just don't understand why is it that photographers feel they have the need or right to know these things? It isn't that I don't understand the curiosity but often it just goes beyond that.

When someone creates an image, they create it to convey something. (It used to just bug the heck out of me that when I presented an abstract image, no reference to place at all, that the first question was often "where did you take this?", the saving grace would be when they appended to that their admiration of the image--but the question itself misses the point of the image.) Personally, I couldn't care one way or the other about the birds and not because of how I feel about the image but more because they're as likely real as not--they feel organic to the scene, at least at this size, and I have been presented with a finished product that Glenn wanted me to experience. If he wanted me to know specifically what he did or didn't do, there would be text on the photo proclaiming it--or in the comments!

Of course, I also understand that often when we learn what is behind images we admire, we may learn to be more forgiving of our own work and understand that the creation of art is a process that often involves doing things differently than what we assumed is done or which are outside of our own parameters. But with what can be done today, I think the preoccupation with what might have been done has supplanted the ability to just enjoy--or not--an image.

Knowing stuff is a matter of balance, when it matters, when it doesn't, when it's interesting, when it's not.

One of the unique things about photography is that a moment can be preserved. When we see certain photographed juxtapositions, the appeal can be in our thinking that the timing of the photographer was just right. A photo of President Kennedy watching his kids playing with Jackie peering out a window overlooking the entire scene at just the moment of the shutter being snapped is different from (doesn't have to be better or worse) a collage put together to imply such an event. A shot of an airplane just prior to impact with a World Trade Center building is different from one that a photographer didn't capture but put together by collage.

The reason people ask where even an abstract photo was shot is because there is an intimate connection for them between the reality of what the camera was pointed at and the reality of what they are seeing in the photo. That seems to me a function of the medium, though there can certainly be exceptions as is the case with collage. Too often, viewers don't realize that the photo is not the same thing as the subject. But it would be as big a mistake, IMO, not to realize that there is still a very intimate connection between subject and photo and photos elicit curiosity about that connection. No photographer is obliged to answer any questions, though there are some photos I would not buy or would think differently of if information like this was not forthcoming from the photographer where I felt authentication of an implied captured event was crucial.

Fred, the point though, for me, is that there often seems to be the lack of a willingness to engage with what is presented "until" how it was made is known. And while there are certainly images that rely on what is depicted to be true to function on one level or another, there is absolutely no reason that they can't be engaged for what they are as presented--whether obvious or not that they were constructed. (I am not suggesting purposeful deception as to fact here, which is a whole other issue)

So, for me "different" isn't the issue at all, two true documentary images of the same event are going to be different, the issue is being willing to engage what has been presented. I think allowing oneself to do that, without prejudice, can foster a lot of growth. Certainly, part of that might be a sense that things were constructed, but then it is a matter of whether it was effective for that image or it wasn't. Unless we are contemplating investing in a piece of art and have a bias with regards to how it was created, just learning to engage an image as presented can expand and enrich our visual sensibilities.

<<<being willing to engage what has been presented>>>

<<<allowing oneself to do that, without prejudice>>>

Often, part of the presentation is the making. No one can view a photo in a vacuum. So, we all contribute different prejudices and bits of information and knowledge to the photos we view. If that includes a concern with how it was made, so be it. "What has been presented" is not a static and obvious thing. There are many subtleties to "what has been presented." If it occurs to someone that the birds were not there originally, who's to say that's NOT part of the presentation. Of course it is.

IMO, we can't view a photo or experience anything else "without prejudice." We can learn to understand our prejudices and include them in our discernment, knowing that we can only step back from them so far. When viewing photos, we can't drown out the background noise, we can't pretend the lights don't affect our viewing, we can't pretend the paper the photo is printed on doesn't affect how we see, and we can't pretend that the actual making isn't part of the photo itself.

As I said, in some cases, it will be more avoidable than others and for some it will be more important than others. But no one is obliged to look at a photo in any given way according to someone else's preferences. Because each of us will bring to bear many things onto the viewing of a photo. That's the fun of being a viewer. And part of the fun of being a photographer is watching viewers at work . . . and allowing them the liberty to view however they want and to ask whatever genuine questions come to mind, whether choosing to answer or not.

Funny, I've been thinking that one of the virtues of this picture is that the birds do look very natural (i.e., not Photoshopped in), but I think it's natural to want to know how an image was made. Anyway, pulling the wool over people's eyes isn't going to elevate an ordinary picture into art.

Fred, while I understand your point, I think I allowed for what you are arguing here in the following statement:

Even if one dislikes certain types of manipulation, which seems to include almost anything to total construction depending on the individual, an image still has visual properties. But what I am talking about here is that often when there is no evidence of manipulation, there is often a lot of energy spent in trying to figure it out. The case here is that there isn't any evidence that these birds are added and there are many images with birds in perfect positions that we have all seen. There probably shouldn't be any we are looking at where they aren't, that is called editing and we should only show our best work, not our almost hits--this isn't horseshoes and we all know there are already too many images posted that waste others time, so why show those that didn't work! (yes, it is part of passage and learning to get feedback as we learn what does and doesn't work, I am being a bit rhetorical here!)

Nature photography is a challenging activity that requires great patience, observation and opportunity. The author is an excellent and dedicated photographer of nature. Just examine his portfolio to reach this conclusion. In this work, it is noteworthy the option by photo format 2 : 3, vertically, which is not usual, so that the observer may perceive, also, the bird that is not illuminated. Even adopting this verticalised format and the reduction of the lower edge of the photo, the observer does not perceive, immediately, the presence of two birds. I only note the bird that crosses the Sun because there is a contrast of colors (red x black). The other bird is almost hidden in dark part of the photo where there is almost no contrast. The verticalization of the photo was a strategy that the author used to alleviate this shortcoming of contrast, making this work very useful for amateur photographers and beginners like me.

Nice, simple, it is beautiful if you could show a few things in the image, without excesive number of objects or effects. The combination of red-pink plus plane grey is one of those mix I like the most. And the detail of both birds gives the enough starring role to them in the picture.

Looks like a typical note card. "Happy Graduation or Retirement or Recovery" or fictional book title. "Wings of Sunset" sappy romance novel or waiting room poster. For me its kind of bland and commercial. So I'd say 'stock photo" it has its uses.

Very nice, unusual hue, not the typical bluish.The big tele captured two worlds in one narrow line.Excellent work Glenn.