Your capture is beautiful and the postwork makes the image POP to my eyes! keep on doing what you're doing! I like your photos

Another great shot! I envy the amount of water where you live.

I like the way the bushes on the far shore are dusted with magenta. The rest of it is lovely as well, but that bit kept pulling my eye back again and again. Marvelous!

I think my comment on your previous photo was understood in a different way than I intended. My comment was this: "I like the design element of this photo. I also sometimes get distracted by the intense color saturation and wonder if it is postwork. If it is postwork I would love to also see the photo without the postwork for comparison. :)" Since I am such an amateur I always wonder how you guys with more experience make such fantastic photos. I have often wondered in past photos from you if the intense color was the natural color or not just from curiosity. That is what I meant by distracted. I never picked up on the fact that you PW the color. I should have just asked the question to you in a message instead of posting a comment that could be construed as negetive in any way. I do love your photos (That is why you are on my favorite artists list) Now I understand that you use the PW creativity I will no longer be distracted by my questions...or if so I will ask in a private message. I still would love to see some of the un-post worked photos for comparision as I am trying to learn more as I go along. And I love the colors on this photo also. Please forgive this bungling. foot-in-mouth girl for her sloppy communication.

I appreciate what SunriseGirl said, above, it was very kind and receptive. And I do understand people wanting to see both versions of a work. But I'm also glad you wrote all you wrote, because it really continues the dialogue, which is very exciting and inspiring. On your points, Ansel Adams said that the camera-shot is only the 'music manuscript'---the notes on the page---while the darkroom image is the Performance---the fulfilled piece of music. Some of his most adored blacks and whites have blacks that, should we see them in person, we'd think the world was coming to an end. As you may know (better than I), he put his shots through sheer 'tortures' in the darkroom---masking, exposing, masking again, 'selectively' exposing, etc---and it could take hours for each pic. They were huge projects for him. He wound up with what many considered stunning realistic photographs, but they were an utterly new vision of what came out of the camera. Or (another example), Berenice Abbot from the earlier 20th C, did famous blacks and whites of NYCity that were so extreme in contrasts, they were almost abstracts. (Your eyes pop from some of her visions.) Even some of the Depression Era Photographers---who almost define photojournalism---could finesse a photo to produce an "archetype" of what they saw. (Ie, it would be hard to find some of those shots with the naked eye, because they made 'icons' of the life they photographed.) Just making the point about realist photographers who transform images. Edward Weston shot his famous green peppers, but so finessed them with lighting/camera settings/and darkroom work, the finished product was like silk. If I owned such a pepper, I't put it behind glass before I ever ate it. But even camera work alone---ie, sans postwork---can dramatically alter a sight: Michael Melford (one of National Geographic's celebrated photographers) will spend lots of time setting up a shot of a landscape; and he uses polarizing filters, which alter the light and hues dramatically. National Geographic famously won't allow postwork---except for basics like basic sharpening, contrast, etc---yet they fully accept polarizing filters. Point being that even in the camera alone, we're altering what we see. The Impressionist painters (Monet especially) broke landscapes into countless dabs of color, even though he didn't see dabs with the naked eye. (And Van Gogh exploded landscapes into almost nuclear arrays of hue and shape...it goes on.) They, like you, would've argued that they were seeing inner reality as well as outer. Well my point is, I know we all see reality in our own ways, and each of them is legitimate; and you're not saying anything different, you're just explaining your own way of creating. I'm just giving more arguments for what you wrote; because, given my love of your gallery, I can't help but get excited by your thoughts. I'm glad your fans---all fine artists---expressed their feelings on yesterday's image (I was entranced by the postwork, myself). I just wanted to say how exciting I find your vision. As I've said before, you bring your scientific and artistic eye into everything you produce, and they work hand in hand. I'll comment on these images soon (long comment and not a word on the photos! I'll return, I promise, but I loved what you did yesterday, and what you're doing tonight). For now, though, I just wanted to continue the dialogue. I was very excited by what's come out of this. I love your choices, crops, compositions, postwork, etc. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool fan. Thanks for your thoughts, I loved them. We need more dialogue like this on RR...

Firstly Claude, I like this photo very much as I did your previous pic. Secondly, I was merely making an observation by saying that your pic would probably look just as good in its natural state. This was not a criticism so please carry on with what you are doing and after all you do invite us to say what we think!

As I said, Jeff, I wasn't offended, just somewhat puzzled & of course I welcome any comments - I just wanted to clearly express that I approach photography as a creative medium, not as a kind of visual documentation of reality. And we'll just have to disagree about whether the photo in it's "natural state" (& I still question what that even means) looks as good. I believe that if the millions of photos that are published in books, magazines & online were left in their "natural state", our visual experience would be much poorer for it...

Claude, I too, feel that you may have misunderstood my motives. I was not criticising your artistic creations. I was not trying to say you shouldn't continue to use special effects with your photographs. I also have done postwork similiar to yours on occasion and understand the level of creativity and skill it takes. I was only trying to compliment the composition of many of your images and say as others above have said, that I think the original photographic work would have also been beautiful, and I would have enjoyed seeing it too.. As you mentioned above, I have posted many positive comments on your images. I continue to be impressed with your skill at photography and work with special effects. The image above is a perfect example of this excellence and demonstration of skill. You continue to be one of my favorite artists. I anticipate a continuance in posting positive reactions to your creations JC

Jim, please see the response to Jeff's comment above. There are no hard feelings, just wanted to clear the air. And I welcome any comments & even criticism...

Claude, this is lovely; I love the shift in hue here. By shifting it a little bit around the spectcrum suddenly everything seems to take on a whole different relationship. I like having my brain challenged like that. As you are likely well aware, I'm on the postwork-yeah! side of things, although I have tried to tone it down a lot (unless I feel very bored, and then all bets are off). I firmly believe that photography is art, and however the artist chooses to express his or her vision is fair game. Purism has its place, but it can be very very limiting.

A spectacular view!