Third eye

Let me know what you think,

thanks,

Very good indeed!

Simple and colourful, I luv it!

I know you posted this image in the digital alterations area but apart from the trees and the cloud this image could have been made as easily in Illustrator. (With enough patience the trees could have been drawn in Illustrator as well). The sky gradiation and the horizon look too artificial in my opinion. Please note that I don?t have anyting against manipulation per se. The sky in my image "Rod" has been manipulated as well. In my (biased) opinion my image still looks like a photograph however.

Kind regards

Daniel

I completely agree with Daniel. If this was a real photo it'd be superb but considering it's construction it's really a sub par PS job. Look at the gradient fill in the sky it's not even blended well. Give me 5 minutes and I could reproduce this image in PS without the poor blend of the sky and the 2-dimensional landscape that looks like a pen tool curve.

I seriously think people rating here have gone insane. Or they don't really look at the images they're critiqueing.

Well, I said I could do this same image in photoshop in 5 minutes. Well I was wrong, it took me about 10.

I have nothing against the person who's image I'm mocking, just the raters and comments that seem to have incredibly overblown it and make me question why we even have a rating system.

My image, I didn't do it exact so you can tell it isn't a copy of the same image. Oh and I used no elements of the 3rd eye image.

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2576246-md.jpg

Quesions:

Is simple beautiful?

Can unreal compositions be beautiful?

What is an easy and obvious image?

First of all, I'd like to thank all the critiques for this picture.

Secondly, as I wrote elsewhere, the number of ratings is "statistically insignificant" to measure the true value of most of the pictures on this site, including this one. So, it amazes me to see some people try to enforce their taste/judgement to others.

The members of this community do not share the same tastes and values, so you/we cannot expect everybody to like/hate the pictures you/we like/hate. Everybody should be able to tell their opinion freely. In this respect, I find it very disheartening to see some folks disrespectful of others' opinion, especially, in this statistically meaningless rating game.

The bigger point I'd like to make here relates to the questions I included above. It seems that some folks discount simple and obvious works! IMHO, just because something can be made in 5 minutes does not make it worthless! If they are so obvious, why anybody else hasn't done the exact thing before?

There is a huge and very rich history of "what is obvious" in patent/invention law.

I am offended by the remarks here that the composition is obvious and simple, thus it must be worthless. I can find literally hundreds of highly-rated images on this site that would take to an average PS user a mere 5-10 minutes to replicate. However, IMHO, the time to plagiarize cannot be used to as the basis to value works.

Mehmet, what percentage of this image is a photograph would you say? That is my biggest problem, as far as I know this is PHOTO.net not photoshop.net. Obviously their is a healthy medium here between photos and photoshop and the digital camera has certaintly blurred the lines further between what is real and what is touched up. However, and like I proved with my 100% photoshopped image, this "image" of yours can be completely produced in photoshop, much like yours is (although I'm guessing your trees at one time were photos). I seriously don't think you can show me "hundreds" of other photos here that can be done 100% in photoshop.

As for ratings, well the ratings here are simply screwed. Their are real landscapes here with real horizons from outrageous places on this earth that are frickin breath taking yet a 3 toned gradient fill and a curved line tops 'em all. I don't blame you for that though, that's the users here prerogative to do so, I just question even posting this as a "photo", cause it clearly isn't.

Richard, for me this is still a photograph, everything except the gradient background are from real pictures. (again I'd like to remind everybody that this picture was submitted in the digitally altered category, I had no intention of imitating reality. Have I wished so, I would have used a more realistic background.) Yet, I know that every member has his/her definition of what a photograph is or should be. There is no point of trying to define it here. It would be utterly useless anyway.

I am not good in drawing things. I cannot even generate this picture "100% in photoshop". However , I can surely find hundreds of highly-rated images that can be replicated in photoshop with minimal use of stock images, like birds, trees, people etc.

Finally, I do agree with you that there are a lot of landscape pictures from amazing places. Yet, amazing places alone are NOT enough to make amazing pictures. Do you think pictures taken on Mars are the most beautiful pictures on earth?

Also, many good landscape pictures use a good deal of filtering and manipulations. As soon as you put a 0.9 hard-edge ND + a warming filter+ polarizer

in front of the lens, the result has a little with what we see with our eyes.

I think about 3000 years ago, Fan Kuan may have asked this question to himself. What is it that I wish to see?

We are merely trying to answer the same question but everybody has different answer.

think i tend to agree with richard - the smoothness and blackness of the curves, the placement of the equally black trees, the gradient sky ... all is a little too perfect for even the most perfect photo.

fortunately ...life doesnt tend to be so, otherwise all shots would look the same and how boring would that be.

a pleasing enuff image... a standard stock image...like eye candy...

is how an image produced relevant?... isn't it the content?... personally i like images that are more complex... not limited chromaticlly (sp?)... more "luck"... less perfect...

your pictures are outstanging and i?ve been amazed by your imagination.

I really like the tones of this picture and the composition with its (in my words)bending-balance. though the shape of the cloud seems to react against the calm of a beautiful sunset.

I think that you have the eye and i should like to have the chance to meet you, am i student of art and design of a colloege in cambridge (uk) and it will take me a while to complete my course and hopefully my degree so if you should happen to come to cambridge i would be pleased to show you where i took some of my best snaps.

my email is quefome@hotmail.com

hope my comment is helpful

cheers

what a sweet image ! dreamlike, super, cheers Jana

Excellent work....

*******