There's slight posterization, looks like drawing... HDR from one picture? Used RAW for creating more shots with different exposure? Interesting. Very impressive atmosphere and perfect crop.

WTF -_-' When i saw this thumbnail, i thought this was a painting...wonderfull shot!! great details...

unbelievable ! +9/9

Nah I don't know much about photography but this is MIRACULOUS. If you didn't say I would think this is a painting, a very realistic and lively one. The duck is truly beautiful.
+9/9

so this is a straight shot from a camera? photo manip perhaps?

• claudia

Sure looks beautiful and like a painting!
And you were really lucky the bird was flying on the right place at the right moment!.....a once in a life chance.
Can we know the speed and F?
Great capture!
Carlos

This looks like a painting.. just unbelievable, hehe +9

My god, I'm lost for words... That's amazing!

Just only word:
PERFECT!

Unbelivable shot !!! As carlos said once in a lifetime shot!!! Good work with HDR !! Well composed as well !! Top Marks !!

Looks like a painting! Incredible!

If this was a painting (which it looks like) it would be too contrived. The fact that it's a photograph is incredible. Great timing & positioning on the duck on two counts - catching the wings so that they are fully extended, and the positioning relative to the background so that it's head is poking just beyond the trees and into the sky. Top marks.
Don

Really impressive capture. +10

Good grief! That is one awesome composition!
All has been said about the great timing and how it looks like a painting...am just here nodding and saying the same thing...
Great job!
Maridol

PERFECT

Everything looks like painted! Very beautiful shot! Well done.

Beautiful capture. Interesting HDR technique.

Wow, looks like a manip indeed.
Beautiful image, top marks.

Great job if it's not a manip. It definitely looks more like a painting than a photo, even in the larger size. I have a gut feeling you are trying to pull a fast one. If not.... please show us one of the originals in the additional download section.

John

I hate to debunk this piece, as it is a wonderful wildlife painting or photo manipulation. I loaded the image into Photo shop and blew up the image and their are certain details on the duck that are giveaways to it being a painting .Or a Photo manipulation using a filter. It is not a straight photograph.Great job on the painting or photo manipulation however. I do like the piece

how did you capture a bird in HDR? The bird looks like it doesnt belong in the scene at all... but I may be just over reacting... The Landscape is beautiful. But the Duck I hav trouble believing sorry.

Only one shot and HDR? A flying duck and HDR? Ok It looks beautiful but it looks like a photo manipulation or a painting.

Unless you reveal your EXIF values we will have to believe that this is a photo manipulation.

I still do think you have done two shots into one ie composite which is photo manipulation according to the gfx rules.

Until you clear this up I won't vote. Sorry!

Yes it seems to me too that the duck was not in the original photograph -> photo manipulation. Oh... is it a crocodile in the front ? More seriously, I think you'd better remove this duck (if it's a photo manipulation) because the rest is wonderful!
However, I am really not sure that you didn't try to cheat (saying 'one RAW file'), so I won't give any points.

Dont know what to say about this one.1 raw file !!! Well it's a cool picture looks like a painting.

Maybe this is a great opportunity for the GFX organisation to set some rules: what is manip and what isn't? In my opinion HDR is always manip, so in this case no discussion needed. Or?

hmm....beautiful, but i don´t know ..... post please the original one ! not the HDRI, greets

there is no way you hould achive this end result with one photo and hdr. it is beutiful but i will not vote for this

I still want to know the exif values.....because you would have to use a very very high speed to freeze the duck and and very smal aperture ( large F number) to get that depth of field......and that leads to another question what ISO did you use?
Can we again know the exif values?
Carlos

Awesome, I love the painted feel...usually I don't like it for architecture type shots, but since this one is nature it looks like one of those paintings I sometimes see. did you use photomatix and then tone map it?

Hello Everybody
Firstly I would like to say: many thanks for all your feedback: comments/critiques and questions. My English skill about writing are not so good as my reading/understanding stuff but I really hope we do communicate somehow and I’ll be understandable enough

I start from the wanted exif info – I must admit that I’ve used old manual lens called PANCOLAR 1.8/50 MC Carl Zeiss Jena DDR on m42… so the exposure time and F number are from my head… (they cannot be archive in exif file):

• exposure program: Manual
• exposure time: 1/1000sec
• F number: 11
• ISO: 1600

The original file is very dark and noisy with bad cropping – so that was my decision to heal it in some post processing: one raw file technique – you generate 3 files with different exposure (eg -2EV, 0, +2 EV) and then you generate (e.g. In Photomatix) pseudo HDR image from one raw file… of course I’ve done a few other tricks for rise the image quality, colors etc…

I’ve receive a lot of questions like: “what is manip and what isn't?” I know that is a hard question for many people, but in my opinion it’s very simple… In the age of digital-cameras why shouldn’t I use all the techniques that making my photography better? In the age of analog-cameras a lot of people was doing similar things in their darkrooms and that was fine – and I really don’t know why a lot of people living nowadays have this “blind belief” that we can do only for e.g. color corrections, cropping, noise removing etc… A lot of us don’t have private photo-studios, helping hands, greatest hardware, best lenses… so what? Does it mean we should only do “one click shot photographies”? There are countless photographies with some removed unwanted leaf, persons… skies with some added birds clouds… etc, etc, etc… Do we even know this? No – why? Because we don’t see this… and that fit into the mold of our stereotypical thinking. I don’t want to rise some war or something… I just want you to know my point of view – if all of you think I should put my photography in “photomanipulations” I’ll do it but I can’t apologize you – because of this I wrote. There is a very fluent line limit between what is a photomanipulation and what isn’t… someone even wrote that for him HDR technique itself is already a photomanipulation. Why? This technique helps us to archive nature in hard-weather conditions better than any other… So what is my definition of photomanipulation – please visit my portfolio photomontage section to see what I mean. I must stop writing because it’s an endless topic. I hope you understand a bit my point of view, I didn’t want to cheat or insult anybody. The Duck – is it real or is it fake? What if I say it’s real? Most of you still won't believe me until I prove it’s real. Why? Is it impossible to do something like that or is it impossible for me? And another hand: if I say is it fake – and those who thought it was real – do they start watching this photo in other way only because of the word? Why can’t we watch photography and receive it by “the eyes and heart” not by the “title and description” ?
And for the end: I’m sorry but those who want to see the original raw file – I’m not sending/giving/showing to anybody my raw files – it’s my “copyright” and something only for me – so to be more secretly – you can always see only the “result photography”. I hope you respect my stuff. Thank you all for that nice feedback… Have a nice day

Wojtek

I consider my self a open-minded guy, but in some cases, my first impression when i saw this "photo" was that it didn't looked like a photo, but a 3D composition with a very nice ambient/light/effects... And the "duck" just intensifies the level of fantasy / cartoon effect. I just saw the duck was not real, but no problem there. In post-processing there is a very thin line between things looking natural, or stepping in to the surreal zone. You've stepped in the surreal zone LOL, this is not a critic, just an observation. I prefer to stand in the middle...

You are not to blame for using HDR technique. I have no problems with that, even if the effect from it makes it, in this particular comp, rather "unreal" and more "painterly" look than a real photograph. You are also on the "right side" when trying to reduce or heal small artifacts but NOT to enhance the overall impact of the composition by adding the bird. That is a composite which is = Photo Manipulation according to gfx rules.

Can you post the original RAW picture as a reference please?

I’m not sending/giving/showing to anybody my raw files – it’s my “copyright” and something only for me –

Too bad, I guess that says it all

If you used a Canon 20d, 75-300mm I just can't understand why you can not get the EXIF???

What is the story about "old manual lens called PANCOLAR 1.8/50 MC Carl Zeiss Jena DDR on m42"...

The first is a tele lense and the composition shows a wide angle shot LOL...

You are so completely full of it...

Don't you have any dignity at all...???

hmmm.....have to agree with MoserArtist, please post the RAW format !

I understand the way you made this HDR now. Ok don't send your raw file, change image size and file format and post it without any photoshop touch. It will still your "copyright". We just want to believe you my friend, but that duck

Hello,
The description under my photo is my mistake - I wrote 75-300mm because I use it too often and wrote it "from rush"... The story about "Pancolar" is simple - I'm using this manual lens because of it's high quality and great "light" ( f1.8 ) - I hope you know what "m24" is... This is not a wide angle shot - this is a CROP from 50mm shot - that's why it has so "strange" wide framing...

I think I wrote everything in my previous comment about raw files... and if this means for you: "that says it all" - let it do. Like I said I don't want to change my rules and don't want to push anybody to change anything, because I don't think it's cool to importune... I don't force you to think in my way - it's all up to you how you see my (or any others) photos... I don't have a problem with that, but if you do - there's nothing left for me in this case just like saying "good bye" to you. For a while it was a really pleasure for being a part of great gfx community. Thanks to everybody who was visting and spending time on my "gallery". I think that gfx artists it's no more place for me... Have a nice day!

Wojtek

WTF ? why are u going man ? ...... thats inmature !

Took a serious look at your website.
Your macro shots are incredible and much of your work is really "good stuff".
Can still not understand why you don't ADMIT that this time you have overdone it on this comp. You have not done this in one go. I would guess two shots and then putting them together (composite). That is not allowed on gfx nor anywhere else. Posting it in photo manipulation is fine. You don't have to leave the site because if that.

I’m going to go against the current here and give this gentleman the benefit of the doubt. There have been many comments so far referencing things like “cheating” or “pulling a fast one.” This begs the question: Why? Why would  voogee attempt to mislead the GFX membership? It’s not as if money is at stake, and he’s already more than demonstrated, with previous posts, his proficiency as a photographer. In addition, he clearly has no qualms with the concept of “photo manipulation,” as he has posted several pieces in that gallery as well. So again, why would he all of a sudden try to “trick” us?

Obviously, a significant amount of post-production work went into this image, perhaps even utilizing some techniques with which many of us (including myself) are unfamiliar, but this is no reason to go on the attack. The line between photography and photo-manipulation is vague at best, and many in the past have convincingly argued that this line is oftentimes quite arbitrary in this digital age.

I think this is a brilliant piece of art, worthy of much praise, regardless of the gallery into which it is placed. +10

It simply goes down to 1 question and 1 answer.
Is this a composite of two different shots?
If the answer is yes then it is not considered a photograph
If the answer is no then I withdraw my harsh comments at once.

@Sdavis75: Your reasoning in the first paragraph makes sense. Why trying to "cheat"?!

Maybe the photographer himself can answer it at best...

Beautiful simply beautiful!

What a beautiful place and image. It's a shame about the duck debate but I can see everyones concern. I think you should just go ahead and tell if you added the duck in or not. It makes no difference to the image anyway.

I have one concern, if this were to be printed would it not be overtly noisy? Especialy considering it's already a crop from a digital sensor.

Anyway, AWSOME image and a beautiful place. +10 fo sure

some people are crazy !

Oh common, this has to be a painting!!
I've never seen a photograph like this... I don't know what else to say. Wow.

You know, showing exif values, raw pics would just ruin the whole mystery and charm of this. That's what I dont like about this site, people need to see brute data rather than dream on it.

Imo I dont need any exifs, I know your works far too well and I know you're capable of doing this without means of cheating.A duck could have very well been there...

Whatever the process after the shot is, I don't care, I like photo anyway. It's amazing you captured the duck. It does look like some kind of painting, but it just gives it a special touch.