lyndon

I can honestly say that I only clicked on this image because it was POW -- and even then only to read the discussion rather than admire the image.

As a graphic artist myself, I can see plenty of merit in this particular piece, but not as a photograph.

You're right, in retrospect, you didn't deny having blurred the image -- it just got lost in translation :)

And, yes, my preference for the original, unaltered version is just a matter of taste -- and I said as much.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good shot. I was merely pointing out, as others have, the reasons why some others feel this is a faked/photoshopped image.

As Paschal points out, there are considerable differences between the original version and the one we have here that was selected as POW.

Compare them side by side and you'll see that this version has been heavily blurred in some areas. This has removed the grain, increased the intensity of the blacks and where there was pleasing sharpness in the naked branches before, now all the muddying of the pixels makes this look like heavily Photoshopped.

It obviously has been altered -- and a little too much in my opinion-- so Yuri's insistence that he only used PS to correct brightness etc doesn't tell the whole story.

It's a shame because the original shot is IMHO so much better (and this is what is most worrying about the elves' selections every week: often, they choose the wrong one); it's a very atmospheric shot and the only thing that detracts slightly for me personally is the positioning of the geese (?) so close to the top of the frame and the fact that they are a little dark. But in the un-altered version, there is at least grain in the birds at the top suggesting that the original was a genuine photograph.

Marshall, may I say that was brilliantly and eloquently put and your comments about the image pretty much sum up my own views.

While I am surprised at how ... erm... enthusiastically Tony has waded in on the issue of possible digital manipulation of this image, I have to say that I too would be troubled if the black breathing space behind the subject was the result of digital editing. Not because I think it detracts from the image and not because I have anything against the digital medium per se, but because it has been selected - through no fault of Peter's - as Photograph of the Week. As such, the piece should remain within the admittedly fuzzy boundary between photography and digital art. [My own definition for what it's worth - and I'm sure there would be many who agree - would be that anything more than cropping, unsharp masking, levels and/or color correction, etc to match the original print or transparency is pushing, if not transgressing, the boundary.]

If it was the stated aim of POW to choose an image that would promote discussion and heated debate, then we could have little complaint with a good many of the recent picks. However, the stated (and narrow!) aim is to present "a fine example of a good composition" - see the About POW page.

Whether "Paul" is an example of "good composition" is up to us to debate at length on this forum. But, and this is what Tony is driving at, if the final composition is the result of digital manipulation to create totally flat negative space to support the compositional choice, it could be argued that the image does not qualify for the accolade of Photograph of the Week.

And this is the crux of the issue: this image is a striking one as it stands, but while the forum is entitled "Photograph of the Week" (as opposed to "image" or "artistic creation" of the week), we should be able to reasonably expect a piece of exceptional quality that stays within the above-described boundaries and ethics and qualifies as a photograph in the traditional sense.

And on a final note: Kyle, I'm puzzled by your persistence with the argument with Tony over framing and borders.

You say: "Peter has framed his point of interest with black pixels while Tony did the exact same thing with white pixels. I dont see any difference."

There is a world of difference. Taking Tony's photograph of his father, he has surrounded the subject for the compostion with the white of the wall behind him and then framed the photograph as an entity with a white border. The photograph and the presentation of the photograph are entirely separate for the purposes of this argument.

"I guess the term I am looking for is Matting."

I don't think it is. Peter has used no discernible method of framing or "faux-matting" on this POW image. The black space is part of the photograph, whereas Tony's white borders clearly are not.

I love colors here; nice, crisp exposure too.

Not that you had much choice, but for me the composition would have been strong if you could have shot the butterfly against a simpler background so that it really sat well alongside the color of the flowers.

Nice photo, though.

There is so much good stuff in your portfolio, I don't know what to do with myself! Quite a treat, but I especially like the composition of this one and delicious light on the rock.

In what is a stunning portfolio, this one caught my eye because of the inventive composition and arresting colors. Great job; I'm envious of the quality of your work and the trip you must have enjoyed taking these photos!

My only nit is that the lower left-hand corner is a little dark but I suspect the detail is there on the slide but got lost in the scan.

The number of shots of "The Site" that have gone before this only serve to make this one stand out from the crowd.

Most are very grey and look merely like a record of having been there. Gary's, on the other hand, seems deeper and more emotional as opposed to being stark.

I like it. Thanks, Gary.

Wow! What a great shot. The rich blues, the absolutely tack-sharp exposure, the not-overbearing sun and the sense of height elevate this (pun intended) well above the average.

Wasn't there a POW a few months back of a paragliding shot? Well, irrespective of your two previous photo.net accolades, if that shot was deserving of POW, this is twice so.

Envious on many counts...!

I don't want to detract from what is a stunning image, but does anyone think that this would be an even stronger composition had the sun been in the left third of the frame?

Like I say, I hate to denegrate this shot because I love it, but I'm interested in what others think.

Normally the central composition might detract from the final effect, but there is such wonderful horizontal and vertical symmetry here that it works perfectly.

I really like this... a lot. Great job.

A POW pick (indeed any photo) doesn't HAVE to be original to be good or even great, and I'm tired of seeing photos criticised because they don't break new ground. If everything we did had to be original, 90% of us - particularly nature and landscape photogrpaphers - should just jack it all in now because everything has been shot already. Even if we find a corner of the earth that no one has ever snapped, someone will still moan that it looks like somewhere else.

Why not just appreciate the fact that as 'fall color' photographs go, this is as good as it gets? The diagonal composition is vibrant, it is perfectly exposed, the colors are fantastic and I have no problem with this being awarded POW. It is just as good as a shot of the same genre by Kiet Vong that was selected as POW a few months back.

Congratulations, Leping.

And to think after watching a number of these horizontal bolts on my drive home up 101 from work, I didn't go out with my camera because I thought the storm had passed...!

A unique opportunity missed : (

Where was this shot taken exactly? At first, it looks like it was shot from Potrero Hill but I can't make out Pac Bell Park in the foreground. Was it taken from the downtown side and the image flipped horizontally by any chance?

Laura, you have an absolute beautu of a shot and I'm deeply envious : )

I like what you were trying to achieve with this but I do get a claustrophobic feeling when looking at the photo. I agree with the previous comment that the scene needs to be simplified and given more room to breathe.

Personally I would have tried to leave more space between the tree trunks and the barn and moved the barn off-center.

Keep trying.

For me, Nick's original comments hit the nail on the head and, unfortunately, since his and a some other measured and thoughtful musings on the "digital art" debate, the argument has turned into a clash between film vs digital when surely this is an issue of photography vs art.

I'm a film devotee but I have no problem with photographs taken in digital format or digital darkroom techniques, provided the goal is to recreate the effect at the moment of exposure.

However, just because a certain filter in Photoshop can also be recreated in a real darkroom (blurring as explained above, for example) doesn't mean that the final product of the darkroom can still be considered a photograph either. To me, whether the effect that Maurice has attained was achieved in in PS or in a darkroom, the final product is *art* and no longer a photograph in the true sense of the medium because it is not what was there at the scene. That is not to say it isn't a pleasing image, it just isn't a photograph and shouldn't be treated as such.

*That* is where the suggestion that we should somehow differentiate between art images and photographic images on photo.net (a la PhotoCritique) comes in to play; not through any opposition to digital art, but through a desire to evaluate each art-form in its own right.

Perhaps this issue raises the suggestion that photography and photographic art should have their own area of photo.net devoted to them so that they *can* be appreciated on their own merits.

This photo is the current cover shot for Nature Photographer magazine, so congratulations on a well-deserved accolade. This really is a stunning shot of a magical place with sky conditions I was hoping for on my recent trip there but was rewarded with no clouds whatsoever!

A couple of questions: In the write-up in the magazine, you say you used an ND grad filter but here you list the Tiffen 81B. Which is correct, if I may ask. It's just that I looked for evidence of the ND on the tufa towers and couldn't see it and I am very interested to know what went into making this image.

Secondly, is the Tioga Pass road often opened during the winter or was this a rare occurrence?

Lovely portfolio, by the way!

The cloud formation around the sun makes it look like an evil eye looking at you.

Nice shot, simple composition.

This is great in all respects - and what a superb subject.

I'm honestly hoping that the person who rated it with a pair of ones made a mistake with their mouse.

I love the warmth and the lighting of this picture. I do, however, find myself wishing that the shadow of her nose wasn't so dominant. Perhaps moving the candle would have ruined the effect.

Composition-wise, I might have kept the glass holding the candle clear of her hand. Otherwise, this is a lovely photo.

The best thing about this image is that all you can see are the legs of this creature. It leaves everything else to the imagination.

I chuckled when this photo downloaded. I love the color and I love the concept.

Good work, Laszlo.

Tony,

The quality of your scans is as high as your work itself. Do you scan them yourself and, if so, what do you use?

Intrigued minds would love to know!

I know you will, but keep shooting.... please! Great stuff!

This is a great effort if this is your first macro shot.

My only comment would be that the out-of-focus flower in the background "touching" the one in focus is somewhat distracting. By moving a little to the left, you might have been able to separate the two flowers in the composition.

Otherwise, great shot!

Steven, this is a stunning portfolio, one of the most consistent and best on Photo.net; I cannot believe the scores are so low. What did you DO in a former life??!!

How this can have an average rating of 4 / 3 (as I write this) is mystifying.

Keep up the good work.

The ratings across your portfolio so far do not do you justice.

Your portfolio is a hidden gem and the four photos you have so far are brilliant in their simplicity, composition and crisp feel.

Congratulations.

The suggestion that we have one POW chosen by the elves and one by us, the readers, has some merit and I think it's a good idea.

However, am I the only one who feels enormously constrained in rating the photos by just the two criteria were are given, aesthetics and originality?

"Originality" especially is a very difficult concept as time goes on because someone somewhere has probably taken the same or very similar photograph as you. Soon, taking original photos will be almost impossible!

There is, of course, an argument for limiting the number of rating criteria so people aren't put off by a myriad of pull down menus to select, but I do think that if a POW chosen by us is to have any real merit, we should be able to rate the pictures by more aspects than just originality and aesthetics.

I apologise to the photographer of this particular POW for raising this here - it just seemed relevant based on comments above. This photo does nothing special for me - and I agree that there is little tension in the scene - but I respect it on its technical merits and composition.