Blue Skies

What do you think?

Really cool. I agree. I like the way that the buildings are dwarfed to the dominant , yet soft and puffy cumulus clouds.

I agree, the cityscape is necessary to give this image another point of interest. Nice contrasts in color, shape (organic and geometric).

 

Consider removing the flare across the top middle (via burning or cloning).

Everything about this photo make this shot!! The blue in the sky is incredible!! And the buildings ARE dwarfed, but necessary. Great shot!!

Splendide!

I like the fresco idea

 

I can see a flying dragon! Did you photoshop that in? If not, did you see it first and deliberately capture it in the image, or is it just an amazing coincidence?

In any case, it's a nice photo - simple can often be good!

My imagination must be lacking...'cause I don't see the flying dragon (I mean, I can surmise...!). However, if it's there, it's a coincidence - I just like the pattern of the clouds, and liked the contrast with the hard and predictable geometry of the buildings...thank you all for your comments!

Only the sky is your limit ... ;)

It's just an optical illusion, of course!

Thanks for the illumination! I guess, NYC has a guardian dragon...!

Come on now,whats all the hoopla about here!?Why do I feel like I have missed the boat on this image?I see some clouds...yes,clouds...colorized at that...and skyline,added as an afterthought it seems to justify the...uh colorized clouds.

 

Oh well,I will continue to view and see if any great inspiration might overtake me...like Saul on his way to Damascus.Just too blind to see.

When I took this shot, I was first, blown away by the beautiful sky; this was actually taken a year after Sept. 11th, 2001 - and the beauty of 9/11/02 was to me, quite healing. Second, at the time I took the photo, I struggled with the rule of thirds - obviously, the horizon is too low to satisfy this rule; I decided to break the rule so that more of the sky can be seen. Third, I've always struggled with whether photo.net should have the "true" image (as I've shown here, in smaller dimensions), or whether altered/doctored/cropped/enhanced/etc. images were OK. I've decided that this is an art gallery, and not a newspaper; thus, artistic (and therefore, subjective) liberties are OK. So I'm not sure that this photo is a "big deal," but as with all images on this site, it is the manifestation of the continuing evolution of amateur photographers' thoughts, feelings and convictions. And it just happens to be nice to look at. By the way, Thomas, I've checked out your gallery, and I was quite impressed with many of your images. Sunsets are sunsets, but you've captured many quite brilliantly...your double rainbow was just perfect! Thanks for looking in to my photo here...

My comments were less for you and more for others to help foster discussion and think about why we rate like we do.The fact that you uploaded the original with a lengthy explanation on why you do things tells me my comments worked.This is what photonet is about and you know this.

 

Lately a pet peeve of mine has been why so many wonderful images get buried almost from the start with maybe as few as 4 or 5 ratings...while other mediocre images can get a huge amount of ratings and comments that I feel is undeserving(IMO of course).

 

No one has to agree with anything that I say,thats not the point,the point is that photonetters should be responsible with their ratings and true to themselves.I do not write with malice,never will,but with the hopes of evaluating our images more carefully.

 

Thanks for your kind remarks on my portfolio,I also have much to learn and realize a lot of my stuff sucks!LOL.Together we can mature in our photography and I wish you much luck!

Not into digital, but this one is good ! I like the clouds and the perspective composition. Great work.