[John Thawley]

Originally Posted by superwaxer

I have to admit, Im very sensitive when it comes to post-processing my photos. In this case I felt that what I saw was not what I was able to put on film due to not having a wide-angle lens. Although I did some photoshop work on the picture, I dont feel that its "artificial" as such. I simply created what I saw. Isnt that what photography is about?

If what I have done is "artificial", then using filters and burning a print should also be considered as "artificial".

I have not voted.

While I understand your defense of your image, the fact remains, you submitted two images, not one. Regardless if you put them side by side or stacked them on top of each other, the fact remains, it's a composite of two images. Pixel manipulation is pixel manipulation. So, I respectfully disagree.

The wider field of view you're proposing could have been accomplished simply by cropping at a 16x9 aspect ratio.

What troubled me most about your image (which is quite nice, btw) is the fact you didn't straighten the horizon. With all the work in Photoshop, I'd have thought you'd catch that.

Anyway.. I guess the guidelines for submission are subject to interpretation.. and you've got yourself a winning photo and a nice one at that.

JT

PS: This totally flies in the face of your argument... it references sensor... not monitor or file.

"Photography is, at its core, the manipulation of light, and the light captured by millions of photosites on a sensor is just as valid as that captured by blobs of chemicals on a roll of film." (David Seager)