Wow! Nice graphical quality in this heavily contrasty image. One could experiment with the crop top and bottom to get a square...might enhance the effect...

Wow, an amazing photo! Thats all I can say, Nice Work!!!

Digital composite or not, I like it. What kind of manipulations did you do?

Frankly, just one thing: paste the moon, change layer options to "screen" & resize it. Believe it or not blues are that blue on the original slide.

I am going to wreck everyones fun. to me it is not a photograph. It is graphic to be sure, but obviously too fake to be a photo, which ruins it for me. Its nice yes, its art yes, but wasn't seen in nature and that ruins it for me. Kevin

Thanks Kevin. That's exactly what I feel everytime I print it out and give away to friends. & it doesnt matter that crescent moon was there(just to the left from original frame, but you could mistake it for a blured star on the full-frame 20mm shot). So first thing I tell everybody: "It's not for real" & then annoy them with all the nerdy talk about differences b/w 20mm and 600mm perspectives...

I think it is nice, but once it is retouched by computer it is no longer photography. It then becomes graphic design. I think it looks too fake. There something to be said about the person who takes the time to do it in the darkroom. I just have to mention one name - Jerry Uelsman.

Ten years ago, or so we use to obtain similar effects by double exposure. First spot meter the moon with the longest lens you have, place it in the (1/3 x 1/3) spot of the frame and click. Then change to wide angle, compose to have black sky where the moon was, expose for the saturated color over the horizon and take the second exposure. When done carefully, the moon will be properly exposed and craters can be seen. This shot is well composed but contrasty. The top 1/3 of the frame is nearly black, I bet it's completely black on prints, unless further manipulated.

An awesome shot to say the least, but I think the thing that killed it for me is that since I'm into astronomy as a hobbie, I knew immediately that it was a composite. The moon is just too big. Also, since it's so bright, shouldn't the moon reflect also off the water? FYI: Also, judging by it's location, I would not be surprised if the star to the right of the moon is the planet Venus! :-)

VERY Velvia - those blues are so familiar. I have to say this - I compliment you on the composite work, as it took YOUR eye and YOUR skills to accomplish this work of art. And that IS what it is. As to the comments which seem to disparage this as a PHOTO - get over it, people. Digital photos are photographs? Anything produced in any way on a computer must be digitized. The world of film will be around long after me, but we must respond to the advances available lest they bury us slowly. The same argument rages in the world of music - purists want to record to tape, use tube equipment and avoid electronic processing, THEN they cut a CD. Duh! You can only avoid the issue for so long, then you have to face the reality. Try surviving as a photographer by avoiding the digital medium - you'll starve pretty quickly. And I do believe all these good folks are sending their PHOTOS to this website - a digital medium. The arguments offered by purists have very few teeth left.

I love this shot. It's beautiful, even knowing it's unreal. I don't 'rate' or 'critique' often, because so many wonderful shots are displayed at photo.net, but when it really grabs me I respond. Congrats on this PHOTO - I love it!

Even though I'd crop the black down by 25% top and 15% bottom, and maybe add that ghost reflection on the water, as suggested elsewhere, just to see the effect. But it's good 'as is'.

I like the image.

As far as the manipulation goes. It does not offend me or make me think any less of an image to know that it was digitally manipulated or enhanced. (I do object however to those who try to pass off their manipulated/enhanced images as being real or "exactly what they saw".) In our own way we all manipulate our images whether we are purists or not. We purists manipulate images through film choice, exposure, lens selection, film processing and the entire printing process (ie. which developer and paper combination we choose to use, burning and dodging, masking...). I personally do not digitally enhance or manipulate any of my nature photos but that is a choice that I have made. I don't think that this choice makes me any more or less of a visual artist/photographer than someone who builds their images in a computer. As artists we strive to share our emotions and evoke some kind of emotional response out of the viewer in relation to our work. You have successfully done that. Congrats on a great image!

It's not a shot photo, it's a composition. Sky and reflection in water was darkened to give required effect, then moon added. Nice but should be presented in an art galery rather than photonet.

love your style, Pawel. How did you figure that out? Oh.., I'm sorry now I remember sending you that slide, so you can judge about darkening etc....

I say just clean-up a little bit around the moon and then get it printed nice and big for your wall.

Great shot, of both subjects actually.

Hrm just cause he did a photoshop double exposure makes it less credible than switching lenses and doing it on film? get off your soap boxes and smell the 20th century folks.

My first semester in photography my Professor told the class that a good photo is one that provokes a response. If people look at your photo and just keep going then it isn't effective. Your photo certainly drew responses. :-)

jeff, it's the 21st century

I like the picture, very eye catching. However, shouldn't be the moon reflecting off the lake?

Not everyone has got the counting numbers 1 2 3 right, it seems: Everyone says: what A nice shot etc.

However the correct term should be what a nice couple of (2) shots, pics, or whatever you like.

And I agree, a nice set of two pictures. better than their individual counterparts, no doubt. However, I find the amount of light on the horizon incongruent with what would be there naturally if the moon were so low down. A double picture of a different galaxy, maybe, with its sun much closer by and moon much bigger to give this perspective naturally.

Nice two photos!

Frank

This is one of the nicest shots in your folder. I like it regardless of whether it was digitally manipulated or not. Thanks for telling us how you did this as well. I've always wanted to get a natural shot like this but there's no way I could think of getting the moon large enough in the frame and still having it hanging in the darker sky above the twilight arch (I don't own a 300 or 600mm either).

I didn't want to offend or make you angry, how it finally turned out. But even large format of your upload is relatively small (poor resolution). It's not my fault your photo looks like done in photoshop, is it? Besides you posted it to accept critique, did you? Nevertheless even as an unreal photo it's not an original piece of art, rather like deer in forest. You're smart man and other of your photos are much better. I don't find any reason you want to promote this one.

Congratulation for the photo of the week. Waiting for the next ones!

Regardless of any manipulation (isn't that what art is all about to the artist, how one portrays it?) I think it is a great photograph. I think one can critique a photo without coming across as so negative (pardon the pun). Obviously, for such a large response - you caught the viewers eye! Well done!

ilia, i do not like the pucture (what would you expect from me?), Siberian Morning is 50 times better than this one.

Very nice composition, even if digital. The only thing that bothers be is that it could have been done with a careful double exposure and the photographer would have gotten only praise (instead of "this is fake" comments).

Ilia, nice shot(s). Everything you did here could have been done with classic means only. The digital technology just made it easier, and less toxic... ;o) Two images sandwiched in the darkroom? No problem. Double exposure? Easy. Breathing chemicals for fun? Yuk. And the final image is very nice. Strong work.

Recently the photo.net technical team added the possibility to see WHO issued the rating. Now I realise who rated some of my pictures with 1/1 and rated his own with 10/10. Too many competitors in top rating? Fortunately I don't care about rating: not my problems. Enjoy yourself.

P.S. Eli Mechnikoff and Eric Krasny are good friends if they do exist.

Andrey Vorobyov is rigth. Now the deal is ohnest. Ilia is not the one who self rated and always 10/10. To my suprise I found different ones but rating very resonably in my opion. I thought rates are to show us other members feedback and as a guide in improving our images, not virtual self promotion. So I support my first comment it could have been transformed in a photoshop. Sorry I don't trust you Ilia.

I really like it, but I also missed the moon reflection on the water.

Ilia, not everybody can be in siberia. In fact it is a good place to be from. Even though it is a composite, I give you credit for artistic talents and of course it originated from a photo source. In any case it is beatyful... it got my attention!

After reading most of the comments about the digital alteration, I have nothing to add except that even without the moon I liked the picture the instant I saw it. I was a little dissapointed about the manipulation and also because you forgot to put the reflection. But I do like the picture

Stunning

How is it many people seem to think that digital manipulation is some how cheating? Photographers have been manipulating negatives and prints for decades. There are many examples of procedures considered normal in the darkroom, but cheating on the computer. I love this picture, and I don't think it even needed the moon adding in. But would it be a bigger acheivement if the post processing was done with chemicals rather than pixels? I think not.

The moon makes this a pretty image stunning.

really, really beautiful....

IMHO the sky is not consistent with sunset: shouldn't the light turn red? Besides, where stars are? I recently shot a photo during the afterglow (http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=363648), and the sky is filled with stars. Of course I could be wrong, I've never been in New Hampshire and there sunsets could be different.

That said, I consider it as a photo. I don't know if the photo was photoshopped or if was just underexposed; but I feel that colors are consistent with the latter technique.

If the real scenario was different than the look of the photo, this is not enough for considering this a piece of 'graphics' rather than a photo. After all I saw some stunning photos, here on photo.net, depicting moonlight scenarios with very long exposures, turning to daylight-like illumination. Don't we consider them as photos, even if the 'real thing' looks different (unless you have cat's eyes :-) ?

PS I forgot to say... I like it :-)

Just a short answer to the last comment: regarding red color - missed it by 5-7 min - damn those tripod legs :). Regarding the stars - tune up your monitor & you should be able to see some even on this relatively poor jpeg.

I wasn't aware that only "straight" photos could be used on photo.net. If so that would eliminate the use of all filters and effects of any kind and what about waiting for the right light? How "pure" does this art have to be? Photography is an art. For centuries art consisted of paints and charcoal etc and I don't think artists were criticized for changing some elements in a scene to make it more artistic. Now we use bytes and pixels, less messy and not as toxic (my house smells like turpentine whenever I paint) plus you don't even have to wear a smock to stay clean. This photo belongs on photo.net as much as any other. As for the reflectiion of the moon in the water...it looks to be too high for this view angle. The water looks perfectly calm so you wouldn't get the scattered effect either. Concerning the sunset and its colors, the lack of any color towards the zenith and the appearance of stars would indicate this is well past sunset. We're talking about a 30 sec exposure here! That's where the blue comes from. Happens most of the time in mostly grayish skys with long exposures. I believe reciprocity failure is the "culprit" here and it works for me.

Ilia, excellent job and thanks for sharing it on photo.net. Thanks to you and others like you I don't have to drive all over looking for galleries to view nice stuff. Do you know how much I've saved on gas alone since getting online?

My congratulations, Ilia! You did an outstanding job! Just look at the number of hits and the number of ratings (even excluding large number of your own).
This is one of the cheesiest images I have seen on ptoto.net that attracted so much attention.
Cheers.

Graphic, simple and beautiful.