* Wednesday C&C "No Theme" Thread #797 / Revived #017 on 2023 07 26 *

Looking at the small version, I thought the filter was applied to the reflection of you, but not to Stella, the cat, or the window frame, which I thoiught was rather cool. On looking at the full size image, I was disappointed to find that was not so, but maybe that would be an idea to try?
In any case I think the filter works very well here and I like the resulting image very much. It shrouds you and the reflected world in mystery, but the cat is clear and straightforward, even with the filter, and her look underlines that feeling.
As to using filters or not, I am open to them. They are just another tool to change the original, like cloning, changing the lighting or colour, converting to B&W etc. etc. So like all PP, I can only judge the result, which can enhance or ruin an image.

Pete

Again, an unusual composition outside the norms makes us stop and think, and the negative space of the sky means we should look at the roof, even if it is at the bottom of the frame. It is quickly identifiable as a house, but the crop is so severe, we should obviously look at it as just a roof or, more likely, a geometrical study - a pattern. The geometric shapes have enough irregularity and there is enough texture to keep the viewer interested, and the complementary blues, yellows, greys and blue-greens are very harmonious.
It is an unusual image, which attracts and rewards attention.

Pete

Now this is a beauty. It is a very good study of a heron, with a perfect reflection in the water.
When the reflection is that good, you really do get almost the same above and below the horizon line of the reflection, so where to put that line? Personally, I find an exact symmetry between the object and its reflection a bit boring, and would usually choose to show more of the reflection than the real world, as you have done, because it is less usual. The information about the background and the heron's environment is there anyway, but in the reflection.

Pete

This looks like a great place to visit, and your photo does it justice.
I like the rocks and overhang on the left to give a foreground, leading to the middleground of the waterfall and outcrop and onto the distant countryside. This creates a nice feeling of depth. The exposure and colours are good and the people give scale. You seem to have ticked all the boxes!

Pete

The processing certainly makes this image stand out and makes the viewer stop and think about the story or message being told, or whether it is simply supposed to be pretty. The bright pink highlights the trees in no uncertain terms, so they are no doubt the main subject, at least below the sky. The rest is man made road, concrete walls and buildings and vehicles, so they take on a lesser role or even that of the opposition. The wall across the frame hinders the viewer's eye from moving freely into the frame, but the call of those pink trees is stronger.
So I interpret this as a struggle between man made objects and nature. But maybe it is just supposed to be eye-candy, which would be a shame.

Pete

The processing is unusual, like a black and white oil painting, so I was interested to read the story behind it. The effect works well in this image.
The younger man is partly covered by a chair and his clothes blend in with the surroundings but he is looking at the older man, who is obviously the main subject. We see him clearly and his brighter clothes helps him stand out. He is totally engrossed in the action of paying the bill and, maybe, concentrating on the challenges. Is the bill correct? Why won't it accept the card? Have I got my PIN correct? Has the signal failed or did the transaction go through? How much should I tip? Should it be for the quality of the food or the efficiency and friendliness of the waiter/waitress? Maybe service is included, but do I care? Yes we have all been there and recognise it on our main character, which endears him to us.
It is an everyfay situation, but well seen and presented.

Pete

Shards - replies

Thanks to everyone for looking and commenting. Below are answers to more specific questions,

Thanks. Sometimes it just flows and inspiration is easy, other days it is tough and rubbish. I am sure you have had the same. I was on my own, which helped, so I could think and wait for as long as I wanted. In fact I was having so much fun, I cut it much too fine for my flight.

Ha! Ha! Yes, I am asking myself the same question. The phone has already replaced my camera for casual photography, ie. meeting family and friends, outings where photography is not the main reason for going out. It is still too awkward to use for more serious stuff (holding it still, touching the screen by mistake and ending up who knows where, trying to see the screen, especially in the Sun) but does have advantages (does not attract attention in public, always with you, very capabale if you let it use its technology, but a dog if you try to overrule it) Actually I had my small Olympus EM10 with me, and it was a concious decision to use my phone as an exercise, and I enjoyed the experience.

It baffles everyone! It is a sculpture on London Bridge and only a story or two high, but there is no name or explanation for it. The name most commonly given to it is The Spike and the usual explanation refers to the practice lasting centuries (but thankfully no more) of impaling the heads of traitors, rebels and serious criminals on spikes on the old London Bridge. I used a wide angle lens and low viewpoint to make it look higher than The Shard, which is about 20 times higher.

Ahh, Mike, you underestimate English weather! They were all taken on the same day. No.2 was taken before lunch and the others within half an hour of each other, in fact no.3 was taken 12 minutes after no.5

Actually no.1 includes a sliver of London Bridge on the right and it is the shadowy structure in the foreground of no.5.
I wonder if you made the mistake so many do and confuse it with Tower Bridge, which is this one .....

Sorry, Mike, if that destroyed your relief from Tower Bridge. I hope you were wearing sunglasses.

Pete

For better or worse, what Duchamp's work said to Warhol is probably close to what Warhol's work said to me and I can't help but notice Britto hasn't had to sleep in his car since he got Hallmark selling his tchotchkes. Since there is seemingly no market for this sort of photography, can it be anything other than eye-candy despite whatever efforts the artist intends? It can't be believed by the eyes, never tells "the truth" as we see it, and always makes "the story" something in relation to how it looks. I love painting with this brush, but what it is truly useful for, I wish I knew.

Pete, you are correct and I should have known better. Yes, it was Tower Bridge I meant. I am studying your last photo hard so I never make that mistake again. Incidentally, nice angle you have on TOWER BRIDGE here. I like the little corner of mud that sets it apart from the usuals.

Very definitely not "more than I wanted to know."
Re The Saturday Evening Post." I've lived my entire life in Australia. You would be amazed at how much we saw of the Post and those Rockwell covers. What this did for the positive image of the USA is beyond calculation. Popular Mechanics should get a USA medal of some sort as well. It's probably also true in other countries that saw these magazines at that time.
When I looked at your photo, the Rockwell touch was unmistakable. Nothing in your extra notes surprised me in the slightest. The real icing on the cake isn't your success in making the graphics look like Rockwell, it's that you have kept pace with the changing world in giving a Rockwell look at current technology and generations. Norman would have approved, You have a great project here.

Thanks Rich. I hugely enjoyed your discussion of sharpness and image size. I couldn't agree more with your observation that sharpness is over rated except when it isn't." Absolutely spot on. One area where I think sharpness is (usually)the critical factor is macro. Here, seeing the tiny details we usually miss is the point. It isn't a genre I do but I can see the fascination.
I have never worked with cameras bigger than 21/4 square film. Yashicamats and Mamiyas. It was enough for me to feel the allure of larger formats as well.

This kind of rambling off topic is a part of the pleasure I get from this forum. Photos move us in many ways that are different for all of us.

Many thanks, Pete. Though I shot that just a few months ago, I've deleted the psd and raw file already; otherwise, I would repost with your intriguing suggestion. I shall remember the idea for future, however!

Being relatively new to the group, I don't know much yet about people's histories, style of writing, approach to photography as hobby or profession, and so forth. I'm not quite understanding Pete's comment that you quoted above. Any elaboration would be welcomed.

However, as a happy hobbyist who has never had the slightest interest in trying to sell anything, I do relate to "love painting with this brush."

I had a drum scanner, too. Manufacturers included Scitek, Crossfield, Dai Nippon, Hell, Optronics, and Howtek. I had an Optronics ColorGetter. Spinning glass drum. Light source on one side. Lenses, beam splitters, filters, and masks on the other side. Then photomultiplier tubes and ADCs,

Open Cube. I enjoy your comments on what you do and the pleasure you get in so doing. Generally speaking, the resulting images are not my cup of tea. That doesn't matter. Keep exploring your own vision and keep sharing them with us.
Vincent van whatever his name was had cupboards full of old paintings. People said his colours and brushstrokes were weird. It didn't deter our Vincent though.

Atm I only have internet when I get into town and don't have time to comment on all the pics.

I love symmetry and both of these two tick that box. I especially love the arches.

Yesterday was my first day out with my camera for two weeks - was suffering withdrawal symptoms... 😄

.

Long shot across a small valley

.