So one day, Michelangelo looked at a few pots of left over wall paint and thought, “Y’know, I think I can do something with this…” So, just to see what could be done, he painted the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel. Then somebody came along and said, “Hey, that’s wall paint, you can’t paint people with that!”
“Oh,” he said. “Why not? It’s paint, it’s on the ceiling, it’s just re-arranged, and not what you’re used to seeing. Live with it!”
What you’ve done with your photographs is exactly the same thing. OK, maybe not a classical work of art, but the thought and idea is the same. You’ve taken what’s in front of you, and turned it into something that wasn’t originally there. Every one of those “photo art” shots is in itself unique, different, colorful, creative, and entirely original. There is absolutely nothing un-photographic about any of them. All the ingredients are there; your interpretation of how to use them is what counts.
Look, flour is used to make cakes, pies, bread, biscuits, and hundreds of other baked goods. Why can’t a photograph be used in another form to make something artful and pleasing to the eye? The original ingredients don’t matter, it’s the results. All your shots are really very good, and should be framed and on your wall.
Don’t let so-called purists – those who say that the only thing that can come out of a camera is an exact reproduction of what the eye sees – discourage or inhibit you.
Your first one, the boats, is beautifully done. Any motorcycle guy would be thrilled to have his picture done up as you’ve created it. The bird on the streetlight is visually stunning. You have an eye and the ability and chops to put down on paper what you create. Please, keep doing so. And please keep posting them for us to see.
For one, I like every one of your creations and urge you to keep utilizing the obvious talent you’ve displayed.
Thanks for posting.
Ronn

Thanks, tainkc, for the great shots. There's nothing like steam rolling down iron...
Here in Portland, I was fortunate enough to be around a bunch of years ago when they pulled the 700 (train buffs will know what that is) out of amusement park storage, and (after about a year) chased it on its first run out the Columbia Gorge to Wishram, on the Washington side. Wasn't taking pictures, but have a video and wonderful memories. There is no such thing as a bad train photo.
Thanx again for the great shots,
Ronn

Shakey...
When I opened your inquiry, and saw the picture, my first reaction was "...oh, wow!" First impressions are pretty much always reliable and mine was that this is a very well done shot. I got no hint of the depth of PP you (and the grandson) did; nothing - to me - gives that away. This is a keeper and deserves a place on a very prominent wall in your home. Really well done.
As an aside, my hat's off to you learning the GIMP. Not the easiest thing in the world to get your head around. It's so loaded with capabilities and effects that I don't know if the average user can ever take advantage of all it can do.
Thanx for the post and keep up the good work.
Ronn

I'm not sure what the issue is here. This is not a portrait studio quality photograph. It's not archival. It's not for historical purposes. It's an opportunity to have someone you care about being photographed with someone he wouldn't normally be in contact with. Outside of posting it on UHH, maybe only a dozen people on the planet might ever see it.
Nobody is going to care what the background is. Nobody is going to think "Oh, they faked that..." Why would they fake it? Why would anyone care if it's a fake background?
One of these people is "famous", the other is not. These two gentlemen were obviously together, they obviously agreed to have their picture taken, and that's it.
It's a nice shot of two guys. Nothing else needs to be added to the picture.

BigD...
I have a friend who owns a very nice Canon. Don't really know the model number or what lenses he uses. And with it, he takes hundreds and hundreds of shots a year. And that's all he does. He doesn't do any PPing, he doesn't do any printing, he just takes the pictures, puts them on a CD, and files them away; "Arizona, 2009" "Somebody's birthday".

Canon - and Nikon, and Olympus, and Sony, and whoever - are all very happy to have as many customers like him as possible. He buys stuff for the camera, not for the results. He truly doesn't know half of what the camera can do. I asked him if he uses back-button focus on such a fine piece of equipment, and got a pretty good blank stare as the answer. I've tried to get him into using even something as easy (and $free) as Picasa, but he isn't interested. I think he cares only for the five seconds after he clicks the shutter, then looks at the back of the camera's display, then goes on to whatever is next. Maybe he'll look at them on his computer sometime later, but that's about it.
All those people around you, as its been said, think just because they're carrying $5K of camera & lens, somehow the work is done for them it's gonna make all great stuff. Most folks on this forum know much better.

I hope the comment of the guy next to you made you smile a little - at least inside. Wonder if he puts his girlfriends through the same process...
There are those that can make a great meal out of a few ingredients and a little imagination. Sounds like you're one of them.
Thanks for the question.
Ronn

I just bought a brand new remote release, with timing, and everything else you'd want or need for about $15.00, shipping from Amazon. Took me a week to get it from China. You could certainly have one by the time you shoot the night launch...

There's a little ferry that runs across the Columbia River between Cathlamet, Washington and Westport, Oregon. Holds about nine cars and costs $5. Takes 10 minutes to cross. We got to the dock and noticed that although the ferry was in, it wasn't boarding. Reason was that it was waiting for this beast to come down river. As it came in view, he loaded the ferry, and we idled out into the river, giving us the view of a huge ship as I'd never seen one before.
The idiot factor: forgot that I'd shot some very low light stuff a few days before and had changed the ASA to something outrageous. Shot a bundle of pictures, only to find out in PP that there was a lot of grain. Thru the miracles of PP'ing, I got rid of some of it, and used it to enhance others.
The B/W is my favorite - I like the gritty texture. I know they aren't high quality, but the day was kinda hazy, the subject was huge and seemed to dwarf the homes along the Columbia, and it was a fantastic photo-op. Comments and suggestions very welcome.
Thanx for looking...
Ronn

Uncle...
I'm using PSPx4 regularly. However, I'm starting to get pop-ups when I close the program, saying PSPx5 is available for a 59.00 upgrade. Maybe they're not doing the x4 free trial any longer?
PSPx4 is NOT a substitute for the "PhotoShop" level of programs. There are many thing PS does that PSP won't do. That being said, for the average non-professional - like you and me - it's more than enough. For the price, there are a TON of neat gadgets, tricks, and enhancements that you can use.
Find out why it won't open for you, get it loaded and try it. Give it a fair chance. If, after that, you decide to dump it, fine. My opinion is that it's a good program - and like anything, it takes some learning. Thanx
Ronn

VietVet
I'd give it 75/25 for the BW. Donrent's comment there's too much clutter may carry some weight but, to me, for a successful BW, there needs to be several opportunities for varying shades of grey. And your shot has those. I particularly like the rip-rap under the pier, and the contrasting sky that balances the shot. I think you need the clutter to make it work. In the color, I might crop out the railing on the left - there's already a lot of inherent perspective to draw you eye into the shot.
Both shots have merit, the BW is, again to me, the more powerful of the two. Thanx for posting these...

Nice work, John.
You turned just another ho-hum picture of just another dog into a very good shot. You've given him character, and that's what I think your judges will look for. The last one in the series is the best. Good colors, good depth, and he looks like he's ready for just about anything. Like the way you gave his coat some texture. Could be a winner...
Again, well done.

Three words; crop, crop, crop. Get rid of all that unnecessary stuff in the background. Then, cut out as much of that termite mound as you can. PP out those skinny little branches around the dog's feet. And center the dog in the picture.
Use #1 - looks more like a dog and it's the only one with the tail where it should be.
Finally, do whatever you can to make the dog's coat stand out.
Hope this helps. Thanx for posting.

IMO and in a word, no. Not something that would be good enough for a competition. Bobber's critique is good: He says there are three positive elements. I'm saying there are three very negative elements. First, far too dark. I had to really look hard to see the little girl on the right. Second, the circle of light - spotlight, if you will - spotlights nothing. If it were on the player's left hand, her fingers on the frets, or where the bow meets the strings, it would tell a story. Finally, there is too much going on in the photo; the player's concentration, vs. the little girl's facial expression. You could argue that the white of the little girl's eye mimics the circle of light on the violin, but I think that'd be a stretch. Tell one story or the other. It's either a missed study in concentration, or it's a picture of the young girl's reaction to the player's music.
Not destructive, I hope, Snapper. Just an opinion. Thanks for posting

Every now and again a shot comes up among the dogs, the cats, the grandkids, the flying egrets, hummingbirds, old cars, sunsets, barns, and covered bridges that makes you stop and just look at it for no apparent reason. Something in the photo captures the eye and the heart and the photographer in all of us, causing that small smile and the "...wish I could have taken that." feeling. This is one of them. Can't tell you why, but I really like this shot. There are half a dozen elements in it that create their own story, or call up memories, or charge the imagination. There are wonderful textures, warm colors, and simple nostalgia. Congratulations to you, Modeladay. You really took a great photograph; and thanks for sharing it with us.

Thanks, Steve...
Makes sense to me. It's going to be a learning experience, that's for sure, but one worth the effort. I'll post some of the "better" test shots.
I appreciate your taking the time to answer.
Ronn

Kejoed,
It's the old rule of thirds thing...
Don't need all the sky above the masts, so tighten up the shot by cropping into the middle a bit more. Keep the reflections, but you don't need all of them. The post knob in lower right will go away if you do that. Also, there's a horizontal line just under all the boats that adds a somewhat interesting depth to the shot. Cropping will bring that out. Cool it up a bit, not much - seems too warm. It's a good shot taken with a good eye. Keep it up and show us more. Thanks for posting.