kahkityoong

Thanks Stephen, there's an illuminated square some distance behind me.

About an hour after sunset Sherry.

Beauty combined with a stark looking backgrounnd. Love it!

Cool shot. Moonlight I presume?

I'm always looking for that X factor or small twist to make an image

special. This black cat seemed just right for the mood at midnight.

Capturing it in the low light was somewhat difficult.

Yes it has both the back courtyard and the opening. It's about 10 frames stitched together to get such a wide view.

Mike there's a good reason why the shadows are not parallel. The answer is in the photo ;)

I like the vintage feel to this. I would agree with the suggestion to show just a bit more shadow detail at the front.

I've been experimenting with Nik's HDR Pro Efex and the other programs in

the family. This was created from a single RAW file so it's actually a

pseudo-HDR. Further examples and reviews of the software will appear on

my blog and websites this week.

Thanks for your comments. I would put up a larger version however the display version gets downsized and softens up. High Rez images are viewable on my websites. You can't make it out here but the man is wearing a nice beret!

One of my favourite Matterhorn pics.

An 8 minute exposure combining two natural light sources. A detailed

description of the background to this available on my Magic Hour

Unplugged blog this week.

Gail, it certainly is possible to get skies that look like this naturally, provided you get lucky with the windblown cloud formations. On this occasion its the 4 minute exposure that creates effect.

The other photo you commented on also has apparent cloud movement, however that was exactly how the sky looked at the time and was not due to a long exposure.

After watching "The Hunter", a film set in the Tasmanian wilderness, I felt

compelled to go through my photos from the region, including this one a 4

minute exposure predawn. Unfiltered.

@ Arthur. I stand by my statement. As an outsider to this critique circle that's my observation. I see a group of critics, some of whom are mean-spirited in their observations, passing judgment from their high horses with no landscape work of their own to show for their snide comments. That's just my observation, feel free to interpret and do with it how you like - probably another remark that I don't have balls no doubt. You ask for an example. Here's one which shows the ignorance that I spoke about.
"I do see a burst of light, artificially induced, but that--mere pictorialism--is not enough to convince me."
What evidence is there which points to the sunburst being artificial? Did the critic ask how this light came about? No, he merely arrogantly assumed that it was artificial since it did not occur to him that there is a technique to creating this in-camera and controlling its appearance.

Is all the discussion here ignorant and disrespectful? No. Should everyone be able to voice their opinion without necessarily being an

expert in the genre? Yes.

It's only the low blows and snide remarks that raises my eyebrow and makes me wonder about the critic.

Fred I guess we are going to have to disagree on that point. The benefit of critiques differ depending on their quality and where along the path a photographer is. Of course this is a gross generalization. A beginner can sometimes make insightful observations and the experienced be totally useless. This article sums up my feelings on the issue well.
http://guytal.com/wordpress/2011/12/the-value-and-futility-of-critique/
As for the photo itself I don't think it stands out among Marc's work although it would tower above the average landscape photographers best. Finding a perfect composition like this in the chaos of a rainforest and marry it with gorgeous light and then having the technical skills to pull it off is impressive to me. What spoils it for me is the large sharp sunstar that takes too much attention away from what I want to concentrate on.

All very good points Fred G. However I'm not labelling anyone cynical nor ignorant solely because their opinion differs from my own. As I alluded to I don't particularly like the photo myself, I'm indifferent. Marc has many more compelling works in his portfolio, some are documentary style and others are more fantasy like. So on the most basic of levels, I agree with some of the criticisms. I will be the first to agree with you that whether someone has hiked 50 miles to achieve an image has no bearing on the quality. However I stand by my statement that there is a huge amount of ignorance and cynicism to be found in these critiques together with a healthy dollop of pomposity and disrespect. It makes me wonder why many cannot direct such advice inwards to create significant works of their own? As I was reading in a culinary book recently, the author, a chef, asked of a food critic whether if one could not distinguish between a langoustine and a crayfish, should she be so critical?