endof_days

The black velvet 'Elvis' of Draganized old person body parts. I generally consider pure black backgrounds more of a lack of commitment to the subject than a statement of any kind. Chopping off the cane to add to the blackness seems an unfortunate decision as it leaves the cane without function, unless this is a very short old person.

The spectators are safe as they are sitting on top of a stone wall. They could always fall off of the wall, which is what I would be hoping for if I were there.

Oh darn! now I want one of those too.

I'm pretty sure that they are looking for their umbrella handle.

nm

" By the way, I should add that concerning the golden shine on pavilion they are surely from two lanterns. The shine on the water below tells. " LOL No disrespect intended.

Leslie, upon second reading, I am now wondering if it is your assertion that those small lanterns on the exterior of the pagoda are illuminating the lake from shore to shore and all the way up the incline behind the building up to the tree line?

Anders, as far as I can see the sun does not shine at all other than burning a lighter area in the cloud cover. If the sky and pagoda are both part of the original scene the only way I can reconcile them is if a heavy exposure gradient was pulled down from the sky to the base of the trees and the pagoda and surrounds where treated to a rise in exposure and a drop in clarity. Or perhaps a byproduct of the heavy handed vignetting. While I appreciate that you do not see anything unnatural in the scene, to my eye if looks very cooked. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Leslie, I never made reference to the lanterns on the pagoda? What I did make reference to is the overall brightness of the pagoda and the area surrounding it, in comparison to the rest of the scene. That light would not come from the heavy overcast sky above it, which leads me to believe either the sky exposure has been heavily and badly manipulated or the sky was shopped in. In either case it looks unnatural and that was the point I was making.

"explain it away as a two person umbrella hat from the 1920's which makes it more comical than just a post processing mistake." Yes, I believe that was the point.

I'm not a fan of this photo montage digital 'art' style of work at the best of times but even less so when done this poorly. The elements have been smashed together with little regard for continuity of light or shadows. The background pagoda is inexplicably bathed in bright morning light under an overcast sky with a dark foreground where the figures cast no shadows. Some elements are too sharp others too soft to make any sense of, in terms of focus and focal length. Even the scale feels wrong. The vignette is heavy and artificial and make what should only be cloying into something claustrophobic. I love the 2phat and now want to have one to wear.

I think it's a tiny pony.

It turns out that Alfred E. Neuman has a sister.

Same old, same old, this brings nothing new to the table, so why a third one of these? While the image is real sharp and very colorful and maybe even tasty, the 'all sliders set to max' approach, robs the subject of any subtle beauty that it may have possessed. It now looks like something that would hurt me if I fell on it.

Not a big fan of watermelon but I would gladly have a few of those mangosteens.

I did not suggest that it be cropped more. I suggested that the image would have worked better shot tighter as a portrait. I do agree that you have many better photos, some of which are stellar, in this same folder.

Thanks for the explanation. I like the sentiment you present regarding the stalk. Perhaps it would be more evident seen in a full size print. Sometimes these small on-line jpegs we use make some of the more subtle aspects less obvious.

I like the processing here, reminds of a faded postcard.