G.Blue simplified

This was a another real grey, rainy dawn shot that was useless. I ran a number of layers through simplify, and then blended.
Not great, but a fun transformation.

Mitch, One thing about art-it has to be what you like first:S3:. I think that the concept is interesting and different. I may crop some off the bottom if it were mine and tone down the brightest whites in the center. It looks like the heron is passing through a cloud.:S3:

Denise,

Thanks for your comments. I thought I would post the original pic to see the starting point.

I don't know if intended, but you bring up an important point when you use the word "art". I had a friend who was a fine artist. He would conceive an image, and then sit down at the canvas and figure out how to achieve what he saw in his mind. Some photos are like that, but most contain some element of serendipity. Where would Cartier-Bresson have been without the serendipity of the streets. Even Ansel Adams could not have expected to return home with "Moonrise" when he set out that morning. My friend is no longer with us, but I wish I had asked him if the final image ever surprised him in how it evolved during the painting of it.

Today, with post processing allowing us such a high degree of manipulative choices, I often wonder how much credit should go to the software writer? We say that it is just an expansion of the tools we have to work with, and that is an argument with merit, but I wonder if it is not something more than in the past.

Sorry for the lengthy reply, but it is another rainy day, and I won't be able to get out and take any pics.

M.

Mitch, Thanks for sharing the original capture and your thoughts. I know for me when I paint my images seem to go in a direction all by themselves. I often find that the case with my digital manipulation.:S3: It's raining here too, I may have to go buy some flowers to keep me busy :)

Hi Mitch. I liked reading your reflection...I think every photographer, particularly in the age of digital imagery, gives some thought to where the lines blur. Up until a few months ago, I was a traditionalist...no cropping, nothing done to the image other than basic adjustments, the image in the viewfinder was the image I strived for in print. I think what has slowly evolved for me is the realization of how deeply I was limiting myself; the image in the viewfinder was simply the canvas on which to paint. I would wager that Ansel Adams felt the same way...and would have embraced modern techniques like HDR and fallen in love with some of the plug-ins like Topaz Adjust and NIK's Color Efex. I think some of the early masters of photography would find the processes available today incredibly freeing...we would have seen many of the same images from them as well as images that pushed the envelope even further...the artist he was in the darkroom, can you imagine what Adams would have done in PS?

For me, it's knowing when to stop...and what images speak to a particular treatment. What I love about OOTB is how it makes me THINK about images...writing a critique straddles that fence between imposing your own vision and appreciating the vision of the OP...there's a dynamic tension there that is pretty enriching.

In your OP, I like the processing you've done with the heron; the BG, to my eye, competes too strongly with the subject. If it were mine, I'd be tempted to crop the image into a pano...and try to bring back a bit of the smoothness to the background, maybe blurring the original a bit and adding some of the color tones you achieved in the OP, letting the heron take a stronger presence in the capture. I'd probably do a slight CW rotation of the image as well. But that's the beauty of it...I came back to this image a half-dozen times before I shared any reflections...I kept walking away, "drinking in" your vision and letting myself appreciate what was there first...

Take care!

Nice image and appliction, Mitch.

I like the colors on the bottom but would crop a little off the right border as they seem to be a little heavy there. But I like the effect.

As for the comments on art, I agree with you that the artist sometimes lets things flow to find his vision and the results can occationally be different than the intent. A friend of mine is also a watercolor artist and creates awesome images in his basement, without viewing the world while doing it. As for the programs ... are they not like the artists tool, as Ansel use to say? Kind of like giving Canon credit for the lenses and Kodak (in the old days) getting credit for the film. We don't credit the designer of the paint or paint brushes in fine art, why worry about the programs and other photo tools that help us create our visions. The use of the computer alone is an example of the modern tool that digital artists use to "develop" their images. The program is just an add-on to the computer afterall. Without Photoshop, would we develop RAW images? I think we need to work with the tools, rather than worry about those that feel we may not be artist because we use them. It's the skill in using them that make it art. But I understand your comment and hope you see the other side as well.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving and give thanks for the ability to create your vision with new tools! :w3

Thank you, everybody, for your responses to this image. It's been a pleasure to read and reflect on what's been said.

Here's a confession. In spite of having a lot of photo gear, I really don't like photographs all that much. (I hope my wife doesn't read this.) I enjoy the creativity that's part of taking the original shots, but it's the post-processing that's my passion because that's where I get to turn it into something else that's hopefully more artistic. Sometimes when I press the shutter release, I know what I want to do later; sometimes, I don't. Always, though, with digital it's easy to try something and reject it if it doesn't work.

It's good to be here, sharing and learning.

Thanks Denise, John , Mark & Dennis for your thoughtful observations.

Mitch