by Rarindra Prakarsa

This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest. It is simply an image that the Elves found interesting and worthy of discussion. Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Site Feedback forum.

Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum. We have this forum because future visitors might be interested in learning more about the pictures. They browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved?

So, when contributing to this thread, please keep the above in mind. Address the strengths, the shortcomings of the image. It's not good enough to like it, you should spend some time trying to put into words why that is the case. Equally so if you don't like it, or if you can't quite make up your mind.

Let's make sure this forum is a wonderful learning resource for future photographers!

Thank you and enjoy!

This is an extraordinary photo, although the entire folder is quite remarkable. What I like here most of all is the golden net as well as the reflection in the water. Congratulations.

This photo has everything you would want and nothing that is unnecessary. The blue color of the shirt and the backlighting are tremendous.

This is one of the best of this extraordinary sequence of dream shots, speaking to our imagination, so far away from the real world. Something to dream about.

If you crop the image to the left of the figure, it is still very good, but what makes it spectacular is the lead-in line of the boat, taking us from darkness into the light.

I like me the photo, you manage very good the shadows, lights and color, the reflex in the water is good detail anyway for me is a masterpiece

regards

absolute 7/7, rarindra. question, though: was this really how you captured it? or was the light effect tweaked in post-processing?

Superb image! Great light! I was only wondering how did you managed to "tame" the natural light!? Well Done!

I love the transition from dark to bright light,love the colors,the blue contrasting the bright orange,love the movement.It's a dream

It is absolutely beautiful, I would love to know how it was manipulated in PS. I'm sure it was oversaturated to get these colors, anything else?

Very nice ! I like the golden light and range from light to dark . Great scene of the boy fishing with some action of the net .Very well composed but it does seem abit tight to me , maybe a little more space above and to the right would help some. Only real negative for me is the hot white on the net . Otherwise a gem ! A great POW !

It seems that the lightpainting technik is very popular.. and there is obvious mastery of it throughout your gallery. I suggest you forgot to paint the blue on the reflexion and there is still some green remaining in the background that gives a glimpes of what the scene was like in real.. not that golden..

There is much to say about the postprocessing.. my feeling is that I just can't believe in this picture.. it's like all the authenticity of the scene was grabbed by the perception of the image maker leaving only splodges of colour and unlikely lightling.

When I try to ignore the makeup of this picture, I see an awkward composition.. mainly because of the almost centered subject chopping the frame in four.. I feel more space was needed on the top and right.

CHeers

I thought I had read something on the technique to achieve the painterly effects that we see in this lovely work of art. I had thought I once read where the author of this lovely scene had actually said how this was achieved. I found a slightly earlier discussion on this in our own darkroom here

Then I am afraid I 'took' the work of art and blew it up in my photo editor. There is much to be seen in an enlarged version. I suggest you look more closely at the marks along the back of the person, or all around the person, entirely. The dream like quality, is just that, I think. A lovely dream created from the author's imagination.

I have trouble with the light on the water and the direction of the light on the net, especially as compared to the dark upper right area. I really wish Rarindra would give us some idea of how all this was accomplished?

should be 'dark upper left'.

A close examination in Photoshop brings out the hidden details and shrubbery. The actual manipulation in the small format on photo.net is able to hide many flaws in the manipulation of the image. In times gone by I remember a similar trick-ness in the manipulation of the image of a monk in a temple.

I have an issue with this photo and the current line of discussion taking place and in my mind one of three things should have to happen. We start out by looking at the information given in the "Details" section.

Rarindra indicates very clearly that this photo is "Unmanipulated".

So either it is indeed unmanipulated, and in the spirit of PN we have to accept it as such and accept that it was not manipulated and then we can focus on the merit of what was captured;

Or Rarindra made an unfortunate click in the wrong place and this image is indeed manipulated, and then I hope Rarindra would join the party and set matters straight;

Or Rarindra intended to indicate that this image is unmanipulated and there is some PN members who feel it was manipulated, well then I am afraid - here we go again!

I am too clueless to know manipulation when I see it, so I really hope to hear from either the photographer or from more knowledgeable people around here to help us in the right direction.

JH

Hi JH

Did you click on the link I left? I think if you go there you might find some answers to your questions in an earlier discussion about this photo. I, too, would like to see the matter clarified. Thanks for bringing this point into the discussion.

In looking through Rarindra's portfolio, I see this one green and gold that shows the green foliage John speaks about. I don't see the cloning marks around the figure on that one, so I think the marks I am seeing were left in the attempt to make the light overall golden on this photo. I would give Rarindra the benefit of doubt on the marking of this one as unmanipulated. It may well have been an unfortunate error given the language barriers that might be present.

Tank you very much for choose my picture as a discussion material. [sorry for bad English]. This was taken near my home at a small lake in West Jakarta. The weather was very good at the day and I imagined that it would be nice if the net is goldy and the background is dark. But actually the background was not as dark as you see in my pic.

I set my camera at 1/500 f5,6, WB: shade. Then I edited in PS with some burn at backgound so the light upper right is so dramatic and more bright. I choose selective colour (blue) for his cloting for higher blue and reduce some yellow. Some dodge at clothing too. I got the blue-yellow contrast overall my pic. I really dont know if this technic "manipulated" or "unmanipulated". I am new here (PN). But all elements here is actual. I just darken-lighten at some area. Tank you.

And thank you Rarindra. It's a beautiful photo, and your comments here are very valuable.

As for what 'manipulated' means in Photo.net, it seems to mean that only colour sides are 'unmanipulated', which means that you're not allowed to mark a photo as unmanipulated if you've done more than correct levels and contrast. For some reason it's also permitted to turn colour photos to black and white, but not to add colour to black and white photos. All very strange, and possibly best to mark every photo as 'manipulated' just to be safe.

I think your photos would make very popular coffee-table books and calendars.

Thank you so much for the explanation Rarindra. I must say your portfolio is breath taking. This particular one shows some flaws (in my opinion and always open to correction if convinced of the error of my ways).

I wonder if you could give us a link to the magazine you mention? And congratulations on the publication! Could we, please, see a link to this magazine and your publication in it? Have you been published elsewhere?

Quote:

"Tank you everyone... Rarindra Prakarsa Photo.net Patron, September 19, 2006; 05:49 A.M. This is main photo for my profile in Ukrainan Digital Photographer Magazine, this month edition. Special tanks to Mr. Zubenko."

unquote

Tank you everyone. And special to Philip for manipilated-unmanipulated explanation. I am too lazy to read the PN rules. I just uncheck unmanipulated. For Meehan My profile is published in Digital Photographer Magazine (Ukraine version) September Edition, 2006. There are 11 pages and 19 photos. Tank you

Thanks again Rarindra.

Now, I wonder what happened on the back of the person? In my photo editor, I see colors outside of the actual figure of the man in blue. I want the gold color to be right next to the blue, but there is a smudge of bluish color in there? Did you use the cloning tool, or why is there that smudge in there?

I don't see these smudge marks on the green photo of the same man in your portfolio.

I wonder the same (smudge tool) about the reflection of the net. The reflection (lower in the frame) is a lot darker than the actual net you have shown us. Do reflections show differences in form than the original shows? Difference in degrees of color.. darker? I see the area just beneath the net. That spot makes more sense to me than does the golden area you have created to look like a reflection. The reflection lower in the frame appears to me to be a blodge of light unrelated to the actual net, created by dragging the smudge tool around. Very creative.

Thank you very much for all the additional information Rarindra - it is much appreciated.

In response to Philip Coggan's comments, granted - it is very difficult to determine the proverbial golden line. I think when you start adding or take away elements from the original image you are in manipulation/alteration water.

Back to the star of the show. Rarindra this is a very good photo and I especially enjoy the play of light. The only reason I prefer to know beforehand whether it is unmanipulated/manipulated is to consider that fact when commenting. Mostly it is so that I don't make an arse of myself by singing the praises of something when everyone but me knows it is a composite, for example ;-). I learned the hard way.

Either way, congratulations on your POW. I will go visit your portfolio for some more.

JH

Oh, how I wish I could make photograhs in your style. This one is marvelous, but pales in comparison with some of the others in your portfolio. You have learned to manipulate PhotoShop extremely well, and if that's bad, shame on you. I happen to see it as good. Very good!

It is almost a sure thing that if I make good comments to anyones art on POW that the masses of you come down hard on the poor photographer. Maybe I should just keep out of it entirely, but Raromdra Prakarsa has moved me so much that I cannot pass by and say nothing.

His portfolio contains many similarly intensely hued dramatic photographs that I wonder how the elves found this one in particular to be of interest. Others are better. I love his compositions and use of darkening backgrounds with the wonderful brilliance of the light in various colors depending on the picture. Yes, he manipulated his image. He made art of interesting photographs. I can see in this photo that the mans blue clothing was not repeated in the water's reflection, but need it be. We can all find minor and trivial changes we might have made which Rarindra did not see the need for or didn't notice, but that does not change his artistic skill in my view. No I would't change any of his croppings either -- at least not more than a millimeter or two. Excellent work.

Willie the Cropper

As a moment is a great one, and it's not one of a city person with a 9-5 schedule, blocked in the traffic with his laptop and cellphone ringing from his wife etc...Kids,animals and original times of people in the lost nature, are always out of time, making them very precious. The weaknessses here are elsewhere...

All images from Raninda are beautiful, but should be posted under digital alterations. There are photographers that think that even cropping is a manipulation. Photographers with a great background and even greater photographs. Digital era has brought many easy bringings but to say that along with them Photoediting and unreal manipulation in a PC on the image taken by a person, makes this result a "photograph" is (I think) wrong.

This comment of course has nothing to do with the aesthetic part of the result, which I again say, it's beautiful, but not a photograph.

It's like Raninda has made a standard procedure through all his shots, making selective lighting on an upper corner, higher saturation. and selective colouring, dodging burninng.

Aesthetics play a great role on being "sucessful", but that doesnt mean it's the only one, to baptize one a photographer.

In an age where everything is possible and hiding a Leica under a hat is not necessary cause even a cellphone can take pictures, the idea of playing with an image making it up, calling it a photo, is maybe, the idea of photo.net and it's use of word as a photo.

When ANY photo can take a 3/3 just because, and ANY digital IMAGE with photoediting manipulation can take the name of a photo, or photo of the week, originality goes bye-bye along with basic photography technics, composition, lighting techniques etc.

Should we even bother to learn all that, or there will be always, virtual sets on our PC screen that will make us OUR wanted image to call a photo?

As a conclusion, Raninda captures the lost hidden small moments of life, but makes them shine fake like a fairy tale. What he could do IMO, is make these ageless moments REALLY ageless without performing any kind of manipulation, making the word photo make also a meaning.

Congratulations Raninda.

Moderator note:

Billy - normally I edit or delete comments that get into the old "digital is not photography" debate. We are not here to question whether digital or darkroom work on images is right or wrong - a photo or not a photo. We are here to critique this image. Discussions about what is or is not photography is appropriate in the Philosophy Forum or Casual Conversations Forums only.

As to the discussion of the digital manipulation - That is very valid but must be limited to the effectiveness or lack of in this instance. It is permissable to point out flaws or suggest improvments.

I think it has been established that the photographer has a language barrier and did not mean to pass this off as unmanipulated - so that discussion is closed as well.

The selection of photos for this forum seems to have gotten much better recently so it seems like a shame that they are hidden at the bottom of the page. This website is similar to a newspaper and in my mind that means that the cover story should appear "above the fold."

I don't want to beat a dead and decayed horse but I will anyway (everyone else is doing it Mom). All photography is a manipulation. It is a simple fact so stop fighting it and get on with the rest of your life.

The photograph is breathtaking which I am sure at least one person must have stated already. Do we need anything more than that to be happy in this life? You can't make the photograph any better because it is done, complete, finished.

Excellent shot, really at golden moment. Masterly done post processing.

A great image ruined by an oversaturated experiment in tone-mapping, very likely with Photomatrix or a similar program. The colors are not natural or real. The gold color of the netting is blown out. I've never seen a time of day on fresh water or at the seashore that would yield colors like in this image. I'm a true believer in post-processing but the final image needs colors that bear a close resemblance to something of this world. The colors of this image fail in that regard.

I have seen golden sunsets like this; maybe a bit saturated but fascinating. I'd have probably lightened up a bit the left side of the shot. None the less, it's a shot of great impact and beauty.

never mind the professional part but the visul part is the rarest one... Omong the best up to now... Congratulations is the word that Rarindra deserves in it's whole meaning...

Whatever manipulation to the tones has or hasn't been done by the photographer, it hasn't altered the fundamentals of the image, and I think the effect is very painterly. I think that this type of photography links back to the discipline of oil painting and other "arts of inclusion" joining together the image captured by the film/sensor and the image envisoned by the artist. Beautiful work.

A beautiful moment in time captured in perfect balance of action, setting and vision. Excellent by every measure of that word. Dramatic, powerful, inspiring and captivating. It couldn't be better!

I see a lot of manipulation of this same general kind on this site, and most of the time it is used to transform a bad picture into a different looking bad picture. In this case it has been used intelligently to transform a good picture into a memorable one. Let's face it, the shape of that net would be hypnotic no matter what was done to the image; the moment caught was perfect to convey action, yet with a sense of calm, in both net and fisherman; and the raft and bucket balance the net well. RP did good work behind the lens, not just behind the keyboard. You have to start with a decent image, almost always, to get a good manip like this one.

August: You have to start with a decent image BUT, you need to end up with the same. That's not here.

Damn this is nice shot. Simple with motion and some fantastic golden light and a little bucket towards the foreground for interest. Nice...

As a recent member on Photo.net, I'm reading with great interest the comments on the POW, but rarely add my own comment since I consider myself not yet good enough yet as a photographer to forward my own observations. I'd like to make an exception this time; so please take my comment on what it is worth.

It is clear that photographic work can lead to very different reactions from the viewers side. This is good. This is also what makes photography so interesting : it is not only a very personal matter from the side of the photographer, but as a viewer we also read shots from very different angles, from very different point of views, with our own personal experience, and foremost with our own preferences on what we like or do not like. I think it won't be too hard to find people who dislike the work of the great classic photographers, just because their work doesn't "click", doesn't touch any internal strings on what it is considered to be beautiful or not.

My feelings toward the work of Rarindra Prakarsa is mixed. On the one hand, I admire the special mood he succeeds in putting into his shots, and especially the way he produces a very typical light ambiance. At the other hand, this is not the kind of work that I would like to hang on my wall since it doesn't touch an emotional string in me. It does not correspond to the kind of style that I have a preference for. No offense meant, my dear Rarindra, this is just personal, and I see with pleasure that other members here do like your work.

The discussion whether or not the shot has been subject to (heavy) post processing or not, is not relevant in my opinion. I have read enough about photography to understand that manipulation after the shooting has always taken place. What counts is the final output, the message that the photographer wanted to convey, and it is only on that output that he/she is to be accounted for.

erwin

Perfect lighting! This is an awesome capture, and the early morning (?) natural light gives this picture the "oomph" that it truly deserves. Congratulations.

ananth

The extreme pictorialist nature of this and the rest of the images in the folio risk moving into kitsch territory. The painterly style renders the subjects with a depersonalised expression and creates generic figures. The most satisfying images in the folio are those which are explicitly surreal. The others are so stylised that they are rendered as caricatures.

I have just looked at Rarindra's portfolio for the first time. I had to look at the images several times. The first time, I couldn't believe the beauty of the photographs. The second time, I'm thinking: "What am I really looking at?" The third time, my mind has decided that I'm viewing some very beautiful photo-illustrations.

My issue is that as I'm looking at this wonderful artist's portfolio in the context of a photography site, one of my reactions was that these are simply too perfect to be real. The lighting through the trees; the water under the children's feet; the whiteness of their teeth, etc. etc. etc. I decided that I'm viewing the beautiful images of an illustrator who uses photography as his medium.

It's obvious, not only from this discussion, that Rarindra uses Photoshop and the art of dodging and burning extensively, and has perfected these crafts extremely well. He also has the taste and sensitivity of an extremely talented artist. His images are gorgeous.

I sincerely congratulate Rarindra on his magnificent art.

I'm affraid I'll have to side with those who feel you have over-manipulated this POW. Not that I mind manipulations per se - I don't -, but I think, looking at your portfolio, that you haven't found the limit yet: I mean the limit beyond which a picture of a human being or a place no longer looks natural, and will lose its own soul. What I see when I look at this POW is the post-processing. I wish the real light of this scene could amaze me, rather than the processing technique that's now hiding it.

I think you are most probably a very good photographer, but right now, I can't see that in your works, because it's hiden behind artificial-looking technology. I hope you will from this week onwards trust your true photographic skills: the best picture is not the most spectacular one, but the one that moves the viewer, and for some viewers (like me) to be moved, they will need to be able to believe what they see. Best regards.

On a different note, and regarding composition this time, I feel the man is too centralized, and the picture would look better if he was standing more towards the left side of the frame somehow.

Marc G. If you think it's static now, and I personally don't think so as that net is so lit up and not centered, how do you think it would look with that net centered instead of the dude? It would be worse.

On the subject of composition , I feel the boy is too centered as well , it could be one of those shots that was compromised , sometimes we cant have everything , due to lens dimensions , timing , etc. In this scene I would have tried to have the dock and person lower down in the frame , but then we would lose the reflection of the net , that I would like to keep as well, but it makes the composition abit awkward as is, my solution would be to add more top space and to the right , enough to balance it out more.But maybe the original shot is not large enough to do this , perhaps PS could add more space if needed .

Well, Rarindra is without a doubt an excellent photographer. But, he is also a magican in post procesing. When I first saw his pictures a was overwhelmed. But then I wonder, what would this photos looh before PS? I belive they would look beauyfull, becouse on every single one Rarindra captured the right moment. I know that this maight be a little controversial, but would Rarindra be able to take that photo on slide? Nevertheless, beatyfull image.

To answer you, Michael Seeward, I'd just say that I agree with you in principle, but in my mind the version that I suppose would be better in terms of composition did not have a centralized net. Having the man on the left does not imply centralizing the net. Rather, the net would still be on the right side. There would just be less space at left, behind the man. Bottom line, the POW seemsvery unbalanced as it is, and by the way, I'd have thought a squared composition way have worked best here - cropping some at left, including perhaps a tad more at top and/or bottom if necessary. Regards.

Wow - talk about 'photoshoping the light.' Excellent computer skills, and a very good photographic base from which to begin.

The lighting appears like a stage spotlight. It draws you from the surrounding shadows.

Many painters work years to get effects like this.

Hi, The colors look very interesting but it would be nice if you can post the original one too, as to how it would look in contrast to the touches you have given. This one is fantastic.

Regardless of all the arguments of whether or not Prakarsa's techniques make these images true photography or not, technology is going to continue to advance and the public is going to be watching to see how artists use these new technologies... Apologies to the purists but I doubt that the public is waiting with baited breath for another coffeetable book of work that looks like Ansel Adams! Rarindra Prakarsa's works are breathtaking and before I was a member here I used to log in every week just to follow his/her progress. The image being discussed is quite simply a fantastic example of this new marriage between art and technology and deserves very much to be Photo of the Week. Glenn

My first initial impression was, 'This lighting looks too unnatural.' Yes it is very dramatic and drama is a good thing, but the bright spot on the net looks way too hot and his blue shirt looks way too blue. The effect these aesthetic choices have on my brain, is that I question the reality, the realism of the scene. The best fantasy and surrealism, use 'believable' lighting scenarios. Realistic lighting draws us in and helps us suspend our disbelief.

EISH! It's a masterpiece! Had it on my screen for about a day, just marvelling at the lighting. The net looks like spun gold! Simply breath taking!

I have been shooting photography since I was in the 8th grade. And that was just yesterday. I have had my darkroom for 9 years with alot of darkroom technics, burning in, cropping,etc. I have never been able to get a photo like Rarindra. I quit. I still to this day, choose film over digital. But after review of these photos, maybe I should switch to digital. But a photo should be, what one see's through the lens. Why are we using software and super imposing the photos. Rarindra photos look like oil paintings than they do photos. Please help me. Is choosing a 15,000 dollar canon mark 2 digital better these days than using my 4x5.

I would like to respond to Dennis: isn't it important what the result is? In the end it is the result that counts, that's how the photographer wants you to see what he/she saw. Probably it is easier with digital to get the results you want, as you can experiment a lot without wasting anything in the dark room.

Anyway, I love this picture, the light is great, it shows some kind of serenity. Wonderful!

the photo is having very good lighting .even the image is centered its having a nice perspective look and infact gives the subject as moving .Nice work dude

A very nice picture, great light and composition, but it should be always a but, the golden net is with no time/movement, the same shot but with a shutter speed of 1/16 or 1/8 could have let us feel some of movement/dynamics in the flying dolden net.

The sharpness of the man's blue shirt contrasts perfectly with the soft whispy quality of his net. I also like the juxtaposition created between a humble lifestyle of a fisherman to the rich golden tones around him. It is as if he is casting for prosperity. I love it.

Looking to the image we will think about the beauty of it, then we start to think how he do it? then we start to dig on other issue about manipulated or not.Well up to certain level..I don't see anything wrong with that.. do forgive me, sometimes i forgot to look if the person checked or unchecked that section...as so far I concern, everybody here at PN is doing a PRESENTATION about their marvelous works and I admired them all! The important think is the creativity and reach the ultimate satisfaction of our soul.and that is what ART all about..and I admired the soul of art inside of this person!so MR Rarindra Prakarsa..you definitely has a class of your own ...simply breathtaking! Bravo! best regards

Love It!!

I think the crucial part of what one feels immediately towards this photo is not exactly what medium or modality it represents, but how the appearance relates to the viewers. This appearance has a critical factor - texture. Craft the same statue in wood and in bronze, and they would look very very different.

Digital enhancement can do a lot to further process a picture in the photographer's creative vision. Essentially when we capture motion through long exposure or take the picture of a building with an ultra-wide angle lens that differs from our normal vision, they are not that "real" anymore, hence what appears real or not is not an absolute, but rather a variable threshold to which all of us would not share. There is however a rather common effect of digital enhancement, that is the texture of the picture would be changed. Photographs have a certain texture determined by the ability of the film or sensor to capture tiny details, whereas artwork gives a different texture depending on the medium. I believe that photographs gives people a more intimate touch because of their closer resemblance to reality, whereas artwork gives more imagination and romanticism. The degree of post processing bridges the two, giving a mixed feeling with different expectation of texture.

I have seen some Balinese artwork and being in the same part of the world in Singapore, I can see the kind of influence Mr. Prakarsa would have been under or would have contribute. I wouldn't say it is fairy tale or unreal, as much as I believe that the impressionist artworks in Europe comes from scenes the artists have seen and tried to depict. Such is the mood that Mr. Prakarsa enjoy from his vision and would like to share with the world about the beautiful part of Indonesia.

With regards to the photographic components of this picture, I would really love to see more texture and details preserved in the blue shirt and the face of the person. That will very much improve the aesthetic interest. I do post processing myself and with limited photographic and post processing knowledge, I find the same problem as a bottleneck. There needs to be sufficient resolution, sharpness and clarity, with subtle and judicious post processing to be able to adjust the hues, contrast and levels without ruining the details. The lack of details at the face is perhaps a very demanding criticism, but such is what i think is critical for a great work.

Contrary to the blue shirt, I do like the pants. It shows very thin clothing which is worn in this part of the world which is hot summer through all seasons. The quality of the light is demonstrated when it shines through the pants and outlining the fishermen's legs.

I'm also fine with the differences between the actual subject and its reflection. There is a natural tendency for the reflection to be darker than the actual scene with a different white balance, depending on the color of the water in the river.

I'm also fine with the overblown highlight of the net.

There is however something I was puzzled and would love to hear from the artist himself. It appears that the fisherman is casting the net into the water, rather than pulling it up from the water. I can't figure out the few vertical streaks on the right middle portion. They can either go for the reflection of a structure that is hidden behind the net (which thus is an distraction) or is water that is dripping from the net (which again appears unlikely and unnatural). I can't really explained why it looks like that.

Also, around the fisherman and the net, there is a lot of reticular (net-like) streaks, that do not look like water splattered from the net. I wonder if they are artifacts from post processing.

There is no doubt about the mastery of light and tones, whether real or post processed. And I would say there are many other works of Mr. Prakarsa that I feel is very much better than the above selected work, and certainly love quite a number of them.

Definetely good critism from Mr Schpaaa. Thanks.

I found so much heart and wisdom in your pictures, they are such a very beautiful poems, that I wish ever I can learn something from you, the colors, the people, the light are so amazing!! Can I say just congratulations?

I met with Mr. Rarindra's photos in another photo site earlier. I was so in love with his photos that I followed all his photos and made my PC's desktop one by one. It is true that the photos he has presented is really unrealistic. But who is looking for realism? We just want to escape from the realities of life and to dream. Your photos, Mr. Rarindra, makes me dream. They make me happy, and feel good. Thank you very much for making me feel like this.