Only for a few hours, though. And spoken like a true right-hander.

Respectfully (honest!),

Pop',

I'm amazed that after 100 years at the bottom of the ocean the divers were able to find anything . . . .

Respectfully,

Hey, I've been told that a lot!

Respectfully,

Or just pull out your cell phone and say, "Yeah, these things just keep getting better!"

Respectfully,

Joe',

Seems like what makes the image so captivating is not just the dramatic lighting. I'd say that the key element is the subtle, precarious balance between symmetry and asymmetry. Well captured.

Respectfully,

Matt',

To my eye, the difference is not so much in the format of the crop as it is in the perspective. The first shot looks to be taken from a bit lower point of view, with a shorter focal length, at a steeper angle from the face of the mill, giving it some visual "motion." The second shot, in comparison, is more of a straight-on view, making it rather more static. Which is "better?" Well, eye of the beholder . . . .

Respectfully,

Steve,

Bingo!

Well seen, well captured.

Respectfully,

Pho'

I absolutely agree with your choice.
Which, of course, means you have to make one, which I often find to be a tough task.

Respectfully,

Tread'

The subtlety of the shot and the fact that you have to look into it a bit to see what is there are very appealing elements.

Respectfully,

Mu'

I'd call them photos . . . .

Respectfully,

Bud',

As others have mentioned, you could have shot it at even slower shutter speed(s), and maybe you did. There is something to be said for subtlety, though. Do you want folks to look at it and say, "Oooh, there's a slow-shutter-speed shot," or, "Oooh, nice shot."? Shooting at slow shutter speeds just to be shooting at slow shutter speeds seems kind of like, well, an "exercise!" Shooting at slow shutter speeds to enhance your image is more like, well, photography.

Just my thoughts.

Respectfully,

I used to thrash around with this concern a lot. When I first started shooting digital, I couldn't help but wonder when post processing was just enhancing the image, and when it became "cheating"? I wandered through a lot of analysis: does it look real; is it a "faithful" capture of what was really there; am I putting too much "me" into "it"; is it too "artificial"? Well, the manufacturer of the film or sensor determines how the image will be captured; how that info is processed and printed determines how the image will look; I think nobody has ever looked at my work and thought, e.g., "That's Half Dome in Yosemite," rather than, "That's a picture of Half Dome in Yosemite." If you've ever seen an original self-portrait by Rembrandt, you probably didn't think was Rembrandt van Rinj, but a picture of him. In other words it's a fake. I wouldn't throw it in the rubbish, though. Long story short, I finally decided that as soon as I drop the shutter, it's cheating. I don't worry about it.

Repectfully,

Pix',

Yep, those are tree roots, alright.

Nice capture. Rich in texture and movement, very organic, very alive.

Keep shooting.

Respectfully,

to Ricard O'7,

Oh, my.
There's lots going on in there. All those subtle contrasts (light, texture, line) made dramatic by the dark and the mystery, all held aloft so delicately.

That's how it looks to me, anyway . . . .

Respectfully,

Brent

Hoo-WAH . . . this one kicks.

The way the figure is rounded over onto itself, top to bottom and side to side, with the dramatic sheet of water wrapped around it, enveloping and mirroring the shape, works for me. The repetition of that shape in two very different items (surfer and water) jumps nicely.

I'm tempted to say it's one of your best, but I haven't seen all your stuff . . . .

Respectfully,