chip_cohen

I got it. Thanks for 'fessing up in 'details' though....

Turned a good shot into an inspired vision.

I find this image disturbing. It hardly bares any relationship to Nabokov's book.

Your opinion may differ.

Anakin,

I too do not find this image true in an aesthetic sense. And frankly, I couldn't give a darn what you think of anyone's work in an emotional context (noting your latest response to someone who, just by chance, didn't gush). This is not some 'I like you' forum--let alone ''You don't like me? Well, you too buddy!'. It is a place where we critique specific images. If you feel that those critiques lack merit, then by all means provide insight as to why those opinions lack sufficient depth --as to be rendered invalid.

For example: here is why I find your image lacking:

1)it is a collage and not a photograph; it bears too many disjointed bits to be a ** MERE** manipulated image, as opposed to a **bona fide COLLAGE**;

2) it bears no basis to reality, but is a purely imaginary scene; purely imaginary scenes (as opposed to imaginary elements) are not within the purview of photography;

3) as a collage it is 'digipainting' and not photography.

Do such digipainting endeavors belong on photonet? That is a valid question to ask. IMO, the answer is 'no', but your opinion may differ.

It's not called 'image.net' or 'digipainting.net'. Or 'collage.net'

All these are valid artistic branches, but they are not photography.

It's digipainting.

Doesn't belong on PN IMO.

I love the distortion reflection of the trees on the bank.

There is no 'film' anymore...unless you love removing grain with PS....

and majestic.

Mastery of texture in composition.

The composition is superb.

IMO the failure of the photo lies in the two distortions invoked--that seek 'vision' beyond the boundary of 'natural'.

Of course, 'personal vision' does NOT require a scientific depiction of nature. That's data. That's not artistic image.

But we have to explore the true value of:

1) artificial fill-flash with partial illumination--from the bottom front--pulling the eye to believe we live on a planet that has a setting sun and, apparently a rising one ...simultaneously. IMO it just doesn't work.

2) re-sizing of the image to distort--well beyond the distortion invoked by a fish-eye effect--the vertical perspective/ratio of the image. Why, oh why, do we need to see this distorted rendering of the conch? Is the image benefited by this 'fun house' mirror effect?

I have no idea why you folks aren't critiquing rather than merely gushing. Yes, it is a great composition; no; IMO, it is not a great image.

Your opinion may differ.

Damn,this is good!

It is amazing that we see and capture art in the banal and everyday.

An inspired shot.

Yet another 'WAVE' shot. Wanted to give a different perspective, and

highlight the pastel-like quality from this viewpoint.

The WAVE is a slot canyon with lotsa twisted sandstone. Very

strange. It is in Arizona, in Coyote Buttes.

It's always challenging to get the right angle and position to take reflection shots, but this one didn't succeed at getting it, IMO. The (reflected)cutoff on the buttes is just too constraining....far more of their profile is both warranted and needed. Also, WHY is the REFLECTED sky BRIGHTER than the REAL sky?

I mean, really: split ND filters and/or polarizers were made as tools for just this very issue.It's both unnatural and ruins the aesthetic for me.

Your opinion may differ.

This is a superior rendering compared to the monochrome. Why? Because it is cropped. This shot, transformed with PS to monochrome, would be superior to the gushy shot that gaga-fies the 'netters.

Nice shot of a standard subject. Again; my opinion is that the photographer adds little to the shot--nature did it for her; for me; for everyone.I assume it is a morning shot; the contrast of the adjacent background rock, is, IMO, a bit artificial. But it works. I hope some notice the puddle on the lower left corner. All of 3 inches deep, but can be 20 yards across. It DOES rain there. It is not shadow.

The second WAVE is about 1/3 mile south of the main 'wave'. It is above the main wave in the yellow rock layers, about 50 yards from Hamburger Rock. The sediment layers of the Second WAVE are extremely fragile, so before you go stomping on it--and the photographer obviously used special care NOT to do so-- understand that the reason you won't find it in books is because of the fragility.

'Leave only footprints' ain't good enough-- pad lightly and reverently. Julayne did.

I must admit that I am disappointed that so many 'netters' continue to jump on this band wagon on a typical--and not spectacular-- WAVE shot.

Compositionally, the shot has too much--it needs to be cropped. And as some have noticed--but it didn't stop you from gushing anyway--the man is NOT well placed for the composition of the shot.

The fact is that there are many superior WAVE shots; and yes, even I have better WAVE shots. Yes; in BW and Sepia; and so on. I even have a better shot from this very same spot. Lots of others do to.

What makes other shots, IMO, better? 1) composition; 2) focus on subject; 3)detail. This shot, IMO, is like eating the whole meal at the same time --with the waiter thrown in to boot.

It is also true that this photo, IMO, lacks originality. It is also true that this very same spot--walking down into the WAVE from the back, S/SW side,has so many shots taken already that portions of the sandstone are wearing down from tripod marks.

I know; I was there in August (again) and made sure I didn't leave tripod marks.

Yes; the WAVE actually looks like this. But the brilliance lies in nature--not in any photographer. There is, IMO, no personal vision here--just the hand of God.

Your opinion may differ.

I doubt most will fully understand the great way you lit this fascinating object. The only thing that may be a slight problem is the specular (periodic dotted) portion in the lower part of the flame makes it look like it was a photo of an existing print. Is it a problem on the original capture? You can see it just above the wicks.

Really quite amazing.

Doesn't work for me. Looks like a colonoscopy. Sorry.

Perhaps if the colour palette was different...

AGAIN--with feeling (a cadenza from Oct 23...)

It is fatuous to state this is not pornography, given that it is on a porno web site. (Someone placed it up in October after it hit PN.)

I sure didn't put it there

PN is not a porno site. So porno doesn't belong here.

OK?

Get it?

Got it?

Good!

It is fatuous to state this is not pornography, given that it is on a porno web site.

I sure didn't put it there!

Jonathan,

I am sorey that you are such an unhappy person. But I imagine, that given the pornographic photo here, that we would see some folks who are schooled at dissing rather than discussing. With best wishes.

"I'll be extremely bold, but I'd like to share with you a little piece of advice: analyze WHY you are so much affected by such an image (or any other), trying not to blame the picture, or the photographer, or anyone else, but rather from a personal, internal point of view; no tricking yourself with the big words you obviously can say so well."

--------------

OK, am have finished analysing. CONCLUSION: Image is not registering any impact. Sorry.

Hi Jou,

Why would I be threatened by porn?

I am certainly not afraid of 1's and 0's....

No; porn is fine. But it's not fine on PN without a screen, because people elsewhere can be arrested for viewing the top-rated photo, not knowing it will reveal a porn image. And kids should be blocked from porn. But hey--I said that. Why not go and READ what others have said.