Thank you all for your comments, I have taken them all to heart, so now the house on the far left is gone, the figure has been flipped so it looks like only one source light, and she is more vertical. I have also lightened the hill on the far left to give the illusion that it’s farther back in the photo. Seeing my work though your eyes and with your comments is an amazing experience for me. Thank you all again for taking the time you did for my benefit.

Hi all, thank you all for your comments and suggestions. It's always good to see things through other's eyes.

This individual is the city manager of a small town contemplating some fairly major decisions that are awaiting his evaluation . . . can you feel the intensity of his concerns?

(Download)

thank you BassmanBruce for your critique, and yes, I would love more comments like the ones you posted.

My intent with the photo was to make an image with a circular theme that would keep the eye moving, just as you recognized and commented on. However, it's not intended to be a photo of the springtime poppies, the houses, clouds, birds or the woman or really anything, it is a photo of a memory or a feeling we might have had at some point in time. Feeling the warm glow of the sun after a long winter, feeling joy in the beauty around us, seeing the beauty of our beautiful earth, smelling the smells of spring, seeing the migrating birds and knowing that another cycle is starting. It's, I guess, a photo of the emotion 'joy', not a photo of flowers and houses and such. I'm hoping this makes some sense.

yes, it sent before the crash, so it's posted loud and clear. Thank you for the in-depth info.

This is a composited image, please don't tell me if you like or not, but if you think it works as an image, I think an image can 'work' without being liked. Please feel free to interpret 'works' any way you want.

(Download)

I'm interested in the software you use to create these images, is it easily available, is it expensive, is it easy to learn, etc, where did you get it, what's it's name, is it worth the time it takes to learn it . . .

You’ve just given me some interesting ideas to try. Thanks for sharing your creativity with us and having the guts to stand up to the self appointed bearers of our moral flame.

I’m surprised by the apparent lack of curiosity expressed by many on this forum. Instead of getting a look into what may or may not be the future of image-making (isn’t that what we’re all doing) some resort to unnecessarily ugly personal attacks (and that’s not why it’s called Ugly Hedgehog) and move into a defense posture because your tools aren’t just like my tools. This sounds like the continuing argument in the fine art painting world where some still argue that if a painting isn’t painted with linseed oil based paint, and not the superior in every way polymer based acrylics, it’s not painted as god intended for paintings to be. And the complainers claim to have a direct link to the ‘truth’, just like established religions that express the opinions of men as the ‘truth’. So, open those closed minds, realize that tons of images are composited and have no claim to having a real physical start, and those images are often much more interesting than the ‘out of camera’ devotees. Good image making, regardless of how it starts, is about telling a story, setting a mood, conveying an emotion, making a memory etc. saying that it must be done using tools just like mine, and must show images that are like what I’m used to looking at is counter to the creative process. Whether you like an image or not is irrelevant, look at the new stuff, learn about what’s possible, apply it to your own creative decisions if you like it and move on if you don’t.

I’m surprised by the apparent lack of curiosity expressed by many on this forum. Instead of getting a look into what may or may not be the future of image-making (isn’t that what we’re all doing) some resort to unnecessarily ugly personal attacks (and that’s not why it’s called Ugly Hedgehog) and move into a defense posture because your tools aren’t just like my tools. This sounds like the continuing argument in the fine art painting world where some still argue that if a painting isn’t painted with linseed oil based paint, and not the superior in every way polymer based acrylics, it’s not painted as god intended for paintings to be. And the complainers claim to have a direct link to the ‘truth’, just like established religions that express the opinions of men as the ‘truth’. So, open those closed minds, realize that tons of images are composited and have no claim to having a real physical start, and those images are often much more interesting than the ‘out of camera’ devotees. Good image making, regardless of how it starts, is about telling a story, setting a mood, conveying an emotion, making a memory etc. saying that it must be done using tools just like mine, and must show images that are like what I’m used to looking at is counter to the creative process. Whether you like an image or not is irrelevant, look at the new stuff, learn about what’s possible, apply it to your own creative decisions if you like it and move on if you don’t.

The white background, the porcelain skin, the even light. Good work!

The white background, the porcelain skin, the even light. Good work!

I’m sure I’m plenty strange in many, if not most, ways, but I agree, shooting sunrises is for ‘guys’ who go to bed early, and that’s not me, either.

For me, it’s about the image, reality is totally over-rated, unless you’re a journalist, that is. And yes, the rocks in the foreground were lightened because I wanted the diagonal flow of the darker rocks in the middle to draw the eye into the photo so the viewer would notice the individual standing there and watching a most glorious sunset.

This photo was masterfully processed. It deserves a place in your home. It’s rare that I have no comments as usually I think every photo could be improved and all things considered, well, there’s nothing that would make it meaningfully better.