It depends so much on what the photographer's feeling is about the image. How many blades of grass are in the world? And how many different ways to photograph them? It seems to me that this is quite a bit more than just a photo of some grass; it really is an impression of the whole sunrise situation. We can all make suggestions on how we would do this differently, but they would be OUR suggestions, not Michelle's. Personally, I like the sun included here. I felt really bad after questioning the abrupt blackness, and causing Michelle worry. It was definitely not meant as a criticism of the result. Look how many people have taken the effort to study this wonderful image; the result must be pretty special. I was confused about how she achieved the result. I do not have a good feel for how the new digital tools respond to being blasted by direct sunlight. I see in the image some things in common with analog cameras; the bright flare at the top, the bright ghost reflection of the lens diaphram at lower middle, the hazed contrast in lower right opposite from the sun flare. I see other things in the image which I do not understand; the green halo which seems to follow many of the stalks, and which seems to abruptly end in blackness at the right. Is this something unique to digital imaging? Almost looks like some sort of true solarization effect (as opposed to pseudo-solarization). These elements introduced by the tools, and the strengths and limitations of the tools, all contribute to the final result. The lens flare and the haloes contribute as much to the final result as the grass. The photographer must know how the tools will respond when creating the image. We can learn quite a lot by studying the images here in the Forum, [that's why I sometimes ask folks to post both the "before" and "after" versions...]