steve_wagner1

The tonality is not at all believable or natural, and there are strong halos throughout. It's an intriguing scene, but the treatment has a lot of issues.

Also, if those are mountains in the back, and they are that far away, there's no way they would appear there, unless they are 20,000 meters tall.

Good background info. I'll take a setup over a composite any day. Still not at all an easy shot to pull off, and you've done it well. Even NatGeo has been known to do some outrageous setups for their nature work. Not my style, but I can respect it when it's done well and it doesn't hurt the creatures. I do think the meaning and significance for nature work changes when it's in the wild, but setups are not uncommon. I won't name names, but a couple of the most famous humming bird photogs in the world have gotten many of their shots in their screened-in porch.

Pretty cool except the sky would not be darker than the water, too much vignetting, and there's too much smoothing/noise reduction. Looks plasticy. Nice otherwise, dramatic.

This is not at all believable, moon would be tiny, but it's still a very nice 'picture' - and a nice picture is a great thing. You certainly can't say great "capture," as some commentors have, since this is not "a capture." I really  don't care that it wasn't done in the most convincing manner. It's not possible to paste a big moon into a wide angle shot and have it look real. It will always look fake. The brain knows better. I assume this was for fun and would not be represented as "a photograph."

And there are definitely, absolutely real photographs. There are thousands of them captured every day by Reuters, et. all.

I'd say no biggie on the stacking. Was it in nature or a controlled setting, and where they placed at all? Just curious, not casting aspersion.

Here are a couple of typical mothers and babies living on the street in Mumbai. It also does very little good to give people in this position money. Give to very old homeless people with no family and no one paying any attention to them. There are countless such people in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata.

http://fireecology.org/images/123.jpg

http://fireecology.org/images/456.jpg

I don't see any devastation or chaos, the average street in Mumbai is far more devastated and chaotic. I don't think that matters though, since it's an arresting image and quite compelling visually, and very well executed. I normally have a strong dislike for heavily processed images (sorry, but in my opinion blue tinting is heavily processed) but for whatever reason this doesn't raise my shackles. I think the sky at center top is too dark and unnatural tonally. All in all it has a lot going for it. I do wonder if knocking down the highlights on that piece at center right a smidgen would give the rest of the image more room to breath.

With all of the amazing topics to photograph in India I'm not sure I see the necessity for this. Yes, there are thousands of people sleeping on the street, but the average toddler living on the street spends most of the day smiling and playing with friends, even if they're walking around barefoot in a garbage dump. People living on the street in India are not nearly as despondent as photographers make them out to be. I have spend many hours personally interacting with them, letting them take photographs with my equipment, sharing tea and biscuits, and laughing and having a good time. This tells a very small part of the story. I would also never take this photo without verbal permission from the parents. just my 2p.

Is this a single image? Pretty stunning if so

@John A. I personally feel very strongly that the opposite is true. Good photographs need not require any more than 15 or 30 seconds of post, or any at all, even off the cuff, on-the-go documentary work in mixed light. I have thousands of images that hold their own very well straight out of the camera. I think 95% of the process of creating a photograph is done by the time you press the shutter. That's just me though, and it's not a judgement of you or your philosophy in any way. I think different photographers have different approaches and that's a good thing.

It's a great scene and well captured, but the laws of physics dictate that water is always darker in a scene like this, quite a bit darker, so this treatment naturally seems off kilter to the mind. The halos are pretty strong too.

niki barbati ../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif../v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif, March 08, 2012; 01:30 P.M.

really interesting exposure and light

Exposure and light happen at the moment of capture. This tonality is the result of post-procesing. It is a marvelous resulting graphic work in any case.

This background also looks very unbelievable. This is not what panning blur looks like. Great image otherwise

Great capture but the motion blur looks very fake, done in Photoshop.There's no way this panning blur occurred at 1/6,400th, and it wouldn't look like this in any case. I think nature photographs are better kept natural. Let nature be enough on its own merits.

It seems like a random juxtaposition. What is the idea you're expressing?

I think people are ganging up due to the (likely incorrect) notion that the photog was being saccharin or playing into stereotypes with his choice of subject and treatment. I would instead put that onus on photo.net for choosing it as potw.

I should add that I think other reviewers are way off base. I doubt the photographer took this photo with the intent that it be a profound expression of patriotism, an iconic image, or anything more than it is. It was just a photograph until elevated by the photo.net editorial staff to become the subject of discussion here. I think such a melodramatic and overwrought criticism such as that as that by Carlos is not uncalled for necessary, but is way out of perspective. You're projecting all manner of intent when as far we know it is merely something the photographer saw and shot, which, like many of us, is his job.

CA Rockies have got to be the most beautiful place on Earth

Amazing capture but watch the halos, quite strong here

As a photo it doesn't do much for me, a snapshot I would say, and an uncomfortable composition, and we have no idea why he's crying, doubtfully out of patriotism, but possible I guess. He could have a headache. Just being honest. This photog has other work that I find a lot more interesting.

Strong composition and strong aesthetic, though a good bit of it due to post-processing. Too unnaturally smooth for my taste. She looks lethargic and uninspired, so it doesn't do much for me as a portrait.

It is novel and aesthetic, the cropping/framing is much too tight for me to relax and look at it for very long. That would be my only critical point. That and I really dislike sepia conversions. This makes me feel queasy. Interesting image otherwise. The unusual rustic setting makes it more interesting, and her form is pretty dramatic.

There's a slight halo around the place and pretty heavy halo around all the buildings too, would help the overall impression to redo the sky darkening.

--

A strong graphic piece, but instantly recognizable as a composite and not "a photograph (read singular)" in my book. Though I could be wrong, and therefore have an airplane size foot in my mouth, but the light sure doesn't look right.

@ John A.
Maybe we should have to write on the face of our images that we "faked" them?
Yes, absolutely. Certainly if it's chosen as a POTW