ernest_minns

There is minimal digital change here. Just the removal of clutter.

The clouds really did curve as seen.

I didn't exactly plan this. A long exposure was necessary because of

the weak light and I couldn't foresee that someone would swivel on

their feet right in front of me in just the right position. It may be

serendipity but I like it.

This is one I took some time ago. I used a blue filter - not sure it

made any difference.

Hardly anybody, except me, of course likes this one. I was told once

that it should have stayed in the computer.

I remember seeing books where the great works of art were analysed and it was demonstrated that all the items in the picture were linked. I.e. a rider on a horse held a crop that pointed to a bird in the sky as he was looking at someone standing by. This sort of set up was repeated all over the picture and the effect was to draw the eye in a path that the painter designed. I have added lines to this picture where I think the components of this picture line up. If this has been manipulated I can't say, but I appreciate the authors final presentation.

With photography up to fairly recently we have not been able easily to construct images that follow the same rules that painters could use but with the coming of digital processing it is now possible.

I would argue that manipulation is perfectly valid if it achieves a more artistic result. A picture is a picture whether it occurred spontaneously or was created in the mind of the author.

I regularly remove distracting objects from my pictures and insert e.g. more appropriate skies.