lightwait

Not sure why HDR was employed here. I have seen many single exposures that do justice to a stream like this, but see nothing necessitating any tone mapping.

The composition bugs me a bit, mostly because of the log at the top, against the edge of the image, and there's a bit too much "white" water -- these stream shots look better when there is more depth and greater contrast that reinforce the impact of all the nice greens. The thin scrag coming in from the left upper middle doesn't help either.

Keep up the good work. I'd suggest more effort in capturing the scene with a single shot and all that that entails as well as searching for the scene that yields a better opportunity to convey the natural beauty of these rain forest streams.

This is weird, I was just recently viewing this image prior to its being chosen.
I simply don't believe it. Strikes me as a mess.

I mean, come on. Take the first home: look how the image sharpening of the field stops around the house. You've got sharper parts farther away than the near parts in the home area. And it's not just this, you can find all kinds of inconsistency that one would expect someone familiar with landscape photography to recognize immediately ... even preconsciously.

If you (you, in the general) think you have an eye for this sort of thing, best get them checked.
Sorry, Edmondo. I'm sure you were just messing around.

Thank you both for your suggestions! Thanks for looking, too.

Best Friends ... in Heaven.

Creepy.

commercial flight

What's the matter? Couldn't find one with antlers?

how utterly full of it you are.

Only revealed itself? How about, you only saw it when you did.

I'm a philosopher AND a photographer. Next time you're "capturing" one of your elusive beauties, ask yourself why you need so many filters. Ask yourself why you need such long exposures. Ask yourself why you need such repetition.

Do us all a favor -- ask yourself.

Is this a boat?

Hello, my friend.

What is your opinion of the circular polarizer's influence on the puddle? I think I'd like to see the sky colors reflected in the puddle.

You've really collected some excellent images. I like how you see things.

Thanks for recent comments. You're right, B&W version has some aesthetic impact.

I certainly identify with your "statement"on your p-net page.

Hi, Sidsel. Thanks for looking.

There's something about bikes...and concrete, and wood planks, and

slat-filled wire fences...

image. Seriously, the whole group, man, wonderfully done.

Do you read the scenes emotionally? Do you feel as though certain aesthetic principles or relationships are often enhanced in ruins by way of contrast with the visual entropy?

Desertion immediately sends me into a visual processing mode that I find rewarding.

If this collection were a book, maybe this one ought to grace the cover.

what is it you want critiqued?

It's a nice 'self-stack' for the dog, but if that's the point, it should be framed a lot tighter (with the pup out of the way).

I suspect maybe this is more of a "three things I love" shot, but if so, none of the three things are really captured at their best. Move in and frame them.

If it's a "sense of place" shot or something like that, go back and get it (the place) when the light is better.

"You see it - you take it. Quick, simple. It's gone in a nano-second."

That's a myth too as far as this image is concerned.

You imagine it, see something close to it, you shoot it, then you move the key figure where you want and leave horrible artifacts all over the image. Then you present it to an audience too ignorant to see your butchering.

"I would like to have seen more curvature there."

Then move to the right.

If this image were a hot truck, the water would be its diamond plate.

Someone said to crop the foreground -- that the water adds nothing. That's often a valid criticism in that water is often uniform and boring, but in this image the water is half the subject.

The water provides depth (not a pun), context, visual balance, and in this case, with all the related broken plains, it is full of converging lines which serve to move the eye into the scene. Take it away and you lose that dynamic.

The water grounds this image.

It is pretty.

But imagine you really woke up within a 17th century painting ... you look around your environment and discover that all reality now has a uniform texture resembling brush strokes superimposed on it. It would be freaky.

This image is like that; a lot is present - and absent - that was never there when the shutter opened and closed (if that's really what happened). Someone else referred to this in terms of a blanket.

Humans. Oh well.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments.

If you look at the large version, you will see the word "STATE" on one face of the building. Obscured by the trees in this view is the remainder of the name of the building -- my single word title.

I recently moved and this was one of the shots of my first evening of exploration in this new location. I think the long exposure created an interesting sky that presents a tight complement to the hard, flat surfaces of the structure.

I'm looking forward to further exploration of Oregon's Capitol city, Salem. At present I am kind of bogged down in remodeling projects.

Peace.

I understand it has been a while since this was posted but wanted to add another perspective.

I agree with the cropping idea but the suggested crop contains the strong line formed by what appears to be an undulation in the field. This is definitely a distraction from the 'bird against the mottled background of the snow-veiled field.'

If you crop below that line, just where the perspective begins to compress a lot, you get a nice gradation from top to bottom. With the horizontal line included, the motion stops right there at the line, with it cropped away, the movement flows.

The relative sizes of bird and background seems just right (w/crop). I enjoy the rich colors of the bird against the broken grid of the plant rows. The snow reflects a lot of fill light onto the bird, I like this effect on the bird's color as it seems to diminish some of the contrast between it and the background.

It looks like maybe the bird's shadow is being cast into a depression on the field, or onto a foreshortened slope -- that's kind of cool that it appears not to have a shadow.

I agree with you that there were and are good reasons to fight the Iraq war, but your anti Obama tirade is as baseless as they come.

Regarding your image: Take out most of the sky, it adds nothing. If you cropped so that your sky portion was about 1/4 or 1/3 of the ground portion, then you'd emphasize the single light source which, with the central tree trunk, strengthen your visual message.

Thanks for your comments on my folio page.