B118

Enjoy

I have no words... Perfect performance!

I really, really hate that cheap PS filter-effect, and I honestly think that your photo is strong enough without it.

The PS reflection ruins it for me.

I agree with Olah and Anupam. You have excellent clarity and color in a beautiful critter. The flood effect is a distraction here.

I think the PS effect gives it a fantasy feel. Effect or no effect, this is a nice shot.

It looks over-saturated to me. The leaf is positively fluorescent.

The flood filter! Great fun, but it is just a toy. I agree with comment above which says your picture is strong enough on it's own. The butterfly itself is fantastic. I would love to see the unfiltered version.

I don't like the filter. I don't like it visually and it is totally against my personal view of what photography is. I will not rate it, but to see it in the first page of "Top photos" makes me feel really sad. If this is the opinion of the average pn user, I think that this is not my place. Nothing personal with you :)

Best regards

It's hard to say if the photo would be strong anough without the PS filter, as some have suggested, unless we can compare it with the original.

 

The vegetation does not thrive in water, so it should not be portrayed as being submerged. To me, it is not the aesthetic of the filter effect that is the issue, rather it is the way in which a nature photo has been robbed of its true, natural environment. The habitat must be shown honestly.

I've always felt that the 'rules' proposed by many regarding 'nature' photography seem arbitrary at best. I'm not criticizing anyone's aesthetics, and I for one use very little manipulation or filtering in my images. But I've seen 'rules' around PS filters vs in camera filters, etc, and it all seems silly. I think images which contain subjects derived from nature should be labled either as representative or interpretive and leave it at that.

 

I think this is a very stiking interpetive image.

"But I've seen 'rules' around PS filters vs in camera filters, etc, and it all seems silly."

 

Steve, I would bet my bottom dollar that the nature photographer that spends months of time trying to find this naturally wouldn't agree with you. That is generally my only reservation about 'made' nature images like this one (although it is a rather lovely image). There are people who spend lifetimes capturing truth in nature and to them, as I know a few prominant nature photographers, this somehow spurns the time they have invested in their art.

 

Like G, I know this image would stand on it's own without the water treatment, that looks pretty fake.

 

Now with all that said, I know if I showed this image to my wife (who isn't a photographer and has come to lothe photography for all the time it takes away from us) she would absolutely love it. No questions asked.

 

So it raises a question: Is the time and effort nature photographers worth it when you can make something better, easier to find in software? I really don't have the answer to that one but I know the arguments are strong and emotional on both sides of the fence...

 

Beautiful butterfly by the way. Anyone know the genus?

Just for your information, check this gallery, one of the best enthomologists in Southern Europe:

 

http://www.fotonatura.org/galerias/galeria.php?id_galeria=3946&offset=0

 

Some of his comments are here in English:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=464004

 

Each of this small wonders is like a book full of surprises, you only need the effort to read it.

" So it raises a question: Is the time and effort nature photographers worth it when you can make something better, easier to find in software? I really don't have the answer to that one but I know the arguments are strong and emotional on both sides of the fence..." Good question, Dave.

 

One solution to that would be to stop classifying a photo. If a building shot is modified and displayed- if it happens to be appealing- how does that differ from this butterfly shot?

Why then study physics and mathematics when we can read science fiction that is more interesting ?

That might have slowed down our "progress" and might not have damaged the environment this severely.

 

Not all that bad, Manel!

I'm sorry but I'm considering to leave. At least, I'm erasing all my nature photos. If you see a pink donkey flying over NY, most likely it is a sample of my new style.

C'mon Manel, some of your nature shots are awesome. We always knew that the average PN rater couldn't tell a good photograph if it knocked them on the head.

 

-A

I find it interesting that this image has inspired this much discussion. I agree with both sides. As my portfolio will show, I do natural and PS images. I do not take myself seriously and no one else should. When I take a shot, I usually have no idea how it will end up on PN. I put up a series of butterflies with reflections and that is all there is to it. Some people like it, some don't. As a matter of fact, I put this up without the reflection and it got trashed. I took it down. Conclusion: ???

 

Thanks for stopping by.

I have used this photo as an example, please don't remove it. Thanks

 

http://frikosal.blogspot.com/2005/10/mierda-real-mierda-virtual.html

This image has been linked to a blog concerning the discussion of fly poop and has been referred to as a sublime vulgarity. I have arrived. Flood Rules!