Pink Companion

Uploaded: October 20, 2004 11:16:20


Image modified in Adobe Photoshop CS


Hans Duggen October 20, 2004

Very, very creative. I like it very much. But why not crop a good part of the forground? #180398

Murry Grigsby October 20, 2004

Nice autumn image Monika! I like the way the path meanders through the garden, the elevated perspective, the scale and location of the person in the frame!! Super colors and effects also. #859189

Mellanie October 20, 2004

This is an awesome image, Monika! The perspective and colors are great! #859199

Colette M. Metcalf October 20, 2004

So pretty, Monika!! Gorgeous colors! #859200

Donna J. Taff October 20, 2004

Very beautiful; just like it is, Monika!!!!!!! #859216

Terry R. Hatfield October 20, 2004

Beautiful Scene Monika!I Like What You Did To The Colors,Nice Job:-) #859251

Cathy Barrows October 20, 2004

beautiful scene...perfect comp...did you use poster edges for's very nice #859295

Cathy Gregor October 20, 2004

Beautiful image, Monika! Love the effects.
-cathy #859608

Stanley J. Contrades October 20, 2004

Love those colors, the "S" curve in the pathway that leads your eye to the walker and the effects that make this an overall gorgeous image, Monika! Super job!!
Stan #860017

Monika Sapek level-classic October 21, 2004

Thanks so much for your nice comments, everyone!

Hans, just as Murry said, I wanted the path leads me through the garden to this person at the end, who apparently shows up there. My first photos taken there were just with some path, I like here how it’s covered with all those red autumn leaves, so that’s why I composed this photo like that.
Once again, thank you for your nice note!


Robin L. Wehrman October 21, 2004

WOW Monkia! This is magnificent and very beautiful colors. Like the way the path leads you through the garden to the person at the end. Fantastic capture:) #860924

Monika Sapek level-classic October 21, 2004

Thank you very much for your kind comment, Robin!

April Bryant October 22, 2004

Man, you couldnt do better if you tried. This is beautiful!
A. #863393

Monika Sapek level-classic October 25, 2004

Thank you very much for taking your time to write, April! I really appreciate it!

Sherri Conley November 06, 2004

This is beautiful, Monika! Very well done! #893350

Terry R. Hatfield November 15, 2004

Congratulations On Your Finalist Monika:-) #912601

Wendy M. Amdahl level-deluxe November 15, 2004

Many congrats to you Monika! :o) #914242

Darren K. Fisher level-classic November 15, 2004

Congratulations Monika On Your Finalist #914313

Murry Grigsby November 15, 2004

Congrats Monika!! #914317

Kelly Abernathy level-classic November 15, 2004

Congratulations! -K #914543

Carol Brill November 15, 2004

Monika, congratulations and best of luck! #914666

November 15, 2004

Sorry to burst the bubble here. This is not a photo, after being so manipulated. When you have a good photo just enhance it to fix minor things. As a good photographer you should be able to capture the mood you'd want to communicate without having to color, blur and texture effects in. At first I though it was a good, balanced image but then when I clicked to enlarge it I was vey disappointed. Sorry.

V/R #914795

Sherri Conley November 16, 2004

Congratulations on making finals, Monika. I think the composition with the leading walkway, the fall colors and your perspective are excellent ~ and the effects used just take this one right over the top! Well done! #915640

Cathy Barrows November 16, 2004

Congrats!...beautiful #916454

Bob Fehringer November 16, 2004

Nice photo illustration but this image ceased to be an original photograph when it was severely manipulated. Next I expect to see someone either on this site or elsewhere, scanning and manipulating an image of the Mona Lisa, or other real work of art, and calling it their own art, just becaue they knew how to use Photoshop.

Keep shooting but try to see, and capture, the image before you put it in your computer.

BF #916646

Monika Sapek level-classic November 16, 2004

Thank you so much for your notes, everyone!

Bob and Rhina, I’m sorry I have disappointed you but I like to have some fun with Photoshop and my images from time to time. Lighten up you two :-)


Bob Fehringer November 16, 2004

Never said I was disappointed. Just said, and this is not aimed at you alone, that when I see an image posted anywhere that is not a true photograph but an image created by computer imaging, that it should not be called a photograph, but a photo illustration. There is a huge difference.

Those of us who make our living with photography, and I mean media-related images, are not allowed to alter photos in any manner that is not possbible in a wet process darkroom.

The wording is something like, if it's not in the image at the time of exposure, you can't add or subtract anything.

So, I have no problem with those who create something that was not there as long as it is not compared in the same light as unaltered photographs. I even suggested having a real photo category on this site, and for contests, one that allows no manipulation other than that allowed by journalistic standards, but those who run the site have thus far refused to even answer my emails. Perhaps this site would be better understood if it were callled something like, BetterPhotoManipulations.

As long as I'm on a roll here, I'd also like to once again say that this part of the site is titled Constructive Criticism and should be treated as such. Comments like wonderful, or beautiful image, do nothing but stoke egos, that can be done in the Friendly Praise section. Suggesting improvements do help, as long as one listens to them.

Feel free to respond, and I'm sure many of you will.

Have fun and keep shooting.
BF #917316

Monika Sapek level-classic November 16, 2004

Bob, don’t be so harsh on yourself, I don’t think people who run this site completely ignore your opinion. For example the category in which this image was entered is described as following:

Digital Darkroom
This category is appropriate for digital art - images created or drastically altered in software like Adobe Photoshop. Although digitally manipulated images are also allowed in the above categories, this is a category exclusively showcasing such art. If the digital darkroom work is the main attraction of the photo, or plays a big part, enter it here.

This seems pretty close to the distinction you are looking for.

Monika #918145

Peggy Wolff November 16, 2004

This is absolutly beautiful Monika! Congratulations on your making the finalist! Don't take it personally we have many wet rags around here lately making negative comments on everyones photos. Shame on them for not taking it up in the appropiate place. #918254

November 16, 2004

Peggy, I found no more appropiate place than somewhere called "constructive criticism" to give that, constructive criticism. Not all contructive criticism is positive, it's not just about saying beautiful and wonderful! It's about giving the person advice to help them improve (please correct me if I am wrong.)
Monika, this is beautiful don't get me wrong. What I dislike is the fact of the severe manipulation. I am one of the few(apparently) that appreciates the time, planning and thought that a photographer gives to the perfect photo before they take it, not after they photoshop it. I think your image could have been a winner even without the manipulation. And yes, don't take our comments personally. If you do, I recommend not posting your images in here, when someone asks for critique we should be able to take the good and the bad and walk away wanting to improve ourselfs. Remember someone is always going to give you advice on how to make it better and improve, but that doesn't mean you did a bad job, noone is perfect...there is always room from improvement - always welcome critiques good or bad, you never know how long is the path and knowledge of those offering you advice.
I do look forward to see more things from you as I hope you are willing to take advice and critique constructively.

V/R #918475

Bob Fehringer November 16, 2004

What is so hard to understand about a heading that reads "Constructive Critique?"

I guess it means, put your glowing, flowery, unhelpful comments here so shooters can feel good about themselves. Whereas a heading of Friendly Praise must mean the opposite.

All I have been trying to say, now read my lips here, is, anyone desiring only praise and kudos, put them in the Friendly Praise section. If you want serious, helpful suggestions on how to improve your photography, or get a feeling on how the image would do in a contest or media situation, not necessarily your manipulation techniques, post them in this area. Again, Friendly Praise is just that, Constructive Critique is not Friendly Praise.

If anyone still does not understand, I suggest you go to the section of this page that spells out just what all the discussion heading mean.

It's pretty cut and dried. Not wet at all.



Janet Detota November 19, 2004

Just a heads up, Rhina and Bob, Monika did NOT put her photo in the constructive criticism category. Hans did. She entered it in the appropriate category. I suggest you take note of that before you accuse of Monika of not being able to take your 'constructive criticism'. And Monika, congratulations on making it to the finals with this beautifully created image! #926680

Pamela K November 19, 2004

Congrats on your finalist, Monika!! Excellent shot. I love the soft colors and the sharpness on the person contrasts well with the effects that you used!

Rhina and Bob, "Constructive Critique" in the discussion section just means that the person who submitted the first comment had a critique to give, not that the photographer was specifically requesting critiques. The location of photos within the categories on the discussion page are determined by the first person to post a comment. If you want to see what category the photographer entered the photo in, you'll need to go to the Contest Home Page where the 10 categories a photographer can choose are listed. One of these is "Digital Darkroom" which is created just for people who like to take a good photo or photos and apply their artistic side through manipulation.

If you don't like digital effects no matter what, you probably shouldn't comment on pieces that were designed using these effects. If you'd like to start a discussion about the pros and cons of photographic manipulation (or join one of the many that already exists) you should go to the Question and Answer section of this site. If you like a photograph, but think it would look great without the effects, you can ask the photographer to post in in their discussion. Only then can you really judge their skill as a photographer.

(Sorry to hijack part of your thread to go on a rant, Monika. There have been a lot of these negative types of comments circulating lately, and I guess it was building up in me... Congrats again on getting a finalist!)

Pam #926712

Bob Fehringer November 19, 2004

Sorry, I'm not psychic.

I guess in the future I will only comment on real, unalterered images on this site, since I guess everyone out there knows how I feel about manipulated images by now.

I really am trying to help. Ask some of your other members who request that I honestly critique their images.

Have fun and good luck.

BF #926741

November 19, 2004

After I read the last comment, I went back to what I have commented before. Me or this Bob character never judged Monika as being a bad photographer. Actually in one of my comments, I did tell her that her image was a winner without photoshop's help. From what I have heard about Bob he is an experienced photographer and people ask for his advice on how to improve photos (those who want to improve and are not stuck in a cloud thinking they are perfect already like others).
As for the forum or whatever you want to call it, no matter how the photo got here it is still on the heading for constructive criticism and that's what many are looking for, again...those who truly want to improve.

Oh and by the way, my comment about people not being able to take constructive criticism was not directed towards monika, but to all the others that jump at the rescue as if the most horrible thing was just said. In the end, all that matters is that she likes it.

Very Respectfully again, #926744

Karma Wilson November 19, 2004

Rhina and Bob,

It is VERY frustating when people jump in a thread on a site they don't know how to navigate. It's a bad idea to comment on photos from the discussion board as you have no idea what category the photo was entered in. There is no "constructive critique" place to enter a photo--there's a constructive critique category for posting comments on photos. The photo categories are:

travel place
special effects
digital darkroom
monthly theme (gratitude this month)

Go to the contest page and click on the seperate category entries to browse photos. If you had done that you would know that this picture of Monica's was entered in the Digital Darkroom category which is specifically for artistically manipulated digital images. I entered one there today actually, a polariod transfer simulation done in photoshop. Monica knew just what she was doing and was rewarded a finalist for her effort in digital manipulation.

Regarding digital manipulation--Bob, in some areas of media (think magazines, books, wall art, greeting cards, graphic design, advertising) there is a HIGH demand for excellently manipulated photos. Special effects are done constantly--and I would say it's folly for some of us NOT to learn photoshop. As a children's book writer I want to illustrate my own books someday with my photos. I need to know photoshop very well. I strive to take excellent photos to begin with, and then I strive to enhance them to produce a result.

If you don't like digital photo work go to a purist photography site. There's dozens of them! But why come here and try to change the way this site is established? Some of us actually NEED a site like this.

Monica, your work is lovely. Keep it up!

Karma #926811

Amy M. Parish November 19, 2004

I think that seeing Monika's previous many works posted here in the last year is proof enough that she is more than master of the craft of photography. This was just a fun side project, which I can understand. It's fun to push the limits once in a while. It wasn't so long ago in history that photography was the bad guy for being too realistic when compared to paintings. It's all relative. Anyway, it's a good illustrative piece, it's great that we can take our photos there if we want to. It's nice to have creative options. #926838

Patricia A. Kuniega November 19, 2004

Well Rhina and Bob... I think you both might be able to learn something here. It appears to me that the technique that Monika used is a slight modification of the sandwiching technique. This happens to be a technique which is taught and used by many knowledgeable instructors and professional photographers on Better Photo and elsewhere, whether they be shooting slide film or digital. This technique originated with slide film, and can now be replicated in the digital darkroom. The only difference between this technique and the orignal sandwich are the steps which you take to obtain the effect. In sandwiching you brighten the layers, in this case they were darkened. I've called it a "difference sandwich" but it uses pretty much the same steps, only tweaking the light levels in the other direction.

Perhaps from a totally purist perspective you find sandwiching to be severe manipulatation. I can assure you that the resulting image is not an illustration. It is a sandwiched photograph. Hopefully you understand the concept of 1+1 photographs layered on top of one another still equals one combined photograph. Do you consider someone like Freeman Patterson to be less of a photographer for employing similar methods? Why should it be considered less of a photograph when Monika does it in an image editing program?

Also, since digital art is not an endeavor to which you subscribe, then why on earth would you comment on it? Wouldn't your lack of knowledge or experience in this area preclude you from making judgement on it? It would seem to me that you would want to lend your photographic knowledge in the realm of purist photography and leave the world of "manipulated" photos to those who know and understand this highly technical and artistic art form. It's amazing to me that some photographers consider digital art to be fluff, but in reality the skills and technical mastery that are required to create these images take years to acquire.

In this instance your ignorance can be forgiven because you don't understand the technique that Monika used to create this lovely image, but for you to suggest that she go back to straight photography methods if she wants to be a "good" photographer, especially after she won a finalist award is frankly, ridiculous. In the future, you might want to consider confining your critiques to those images which are in the realm of your own experience.


Patricia A. Kuniega November 19, 2004

By the way Monika, congratulations on your beautiful finalist! I didn't see this originally, but think you did a wonderful job with sandwiching the photograph. Excellent work. I'm so glad the judges recognized it! Who would think a little sandwich could cause so much controversy?! ; ) #926878

Lucia De Giovanni November 19, 2004

Photography seems to have many definitions on this site - as a "purist" I thoroughly enjoy unretouched photographs, I think it takes a certain talent to be able to take a camera and see through it. I am very "PS-challenged" and that's my choice - the talent it takes to be a graphic designer is beyond my understanding and it is quite a skill that comes from experience and learning. I have been so very fortunate to have Bob critique my photographs and I am grateful since it has improved my technique tremendously. Maybe an answer to this controversy is to have a PS critique section, where experts at PS or other software can help people better their skills.
BP is a wonderful site where people are very supportive of each other and if it can be improved in this manner where people feel like their skills are fostered, maybe the answer is to ask for what the community needs and help retain the enthusiasm we all have when we look through the viewfinder on that perfect day, where the light is just wonderful and everything seems to flow.
Take good care everyone.
L. #926943

November 19, 2004

Patricia may call me ignorant, but as an editor of a high-distribution newspaper I must know all the rules and laws about manipulation, some set in stone for us news-media like it says in the Associated Press Stylebook (used by all in the field like our bible):

"The content of a photograph will NEVER be changed or manipulated in any way."

Throughout my years of schooling I have been taught to make it good from the beginning, and the clear cut definition of manipulation...and this photo is considered manipulation, no matter what technique she used. If you don't believe me, ask any of the editors of National Geographic...they know the manipulation concept inside and out after their incident.

It is not a big deal for most of the people here, since you are creative and wont hurt anyone when you change a's for the love of art I might say.

Where I am trying to get to is that ethics and credibility is what it boils down to. If someone wishes to call themselves photographers, not because photographers who play with Photoshop are not artist (because they are), they lend themselves to the thought that they need to manipulate in order to have a good image.

Patricia, and others, maybe now that you know my job you must understand that someday I might be put in the position of having to fire my best photographer (or I might get fired as well) for ONE manipulated photo. That's one of the reasons I get inmediately turned off when I see a manipulated image; that doesn't mean that I don't appreciated them as well...but if someone can say "Wonderful," why can't I say "Wonderful image, but I don't like it because this and this."

V/R (stands for Very Respectfully)

Dorothy Neumann November 20, 2004

Rhina and Bob, I understand where you are coming from. I, too, have a journalism background, and if I were judging this photo from the standpoint of journalism, I would probably object to it if it were offered as a "news" photograph. However, it has not been presented as in any way being illustrative of a news event. It has been presented as an artistic picture. It's not fair to it to judge it from a journalistic standpoint. It succeeds as a digital image...and there are lots of digital images presented in Newsweek and other news publications. It's like comparing apples to oranges...they're not the same thing. #927066

Hans Duggen November 20, 2004

Well spoken, Dorothy. Let´s talk about pictures. Photography or not.

Monika, I understood very well what Murry ment. I´ve printed your photo out on paper and played with the cropping and I still must say, that the leading of the path is just as good when it not do lead to the corner. I´m very sorry when others take my constructive idea as a negative talk. It was NOT ment as that. After disagreement in this very small detaill I still like the picture, as I said in the beginning.

But I´m also glad for Rhinas and Bob comment in another way. Their expressions are right in many way, but has nothing - or very little - to do with your picture, Monica. I read their words as a generally comments to imaging problems of today. And I agree in many ways, but not all. One of the problems on all photosites on the Internet are comments as: lovely, nice shot, beautiful, god shot. If any should learn of such comments, nobody would learn. Readers should comment more about detaills in composition, coloring, ideas. This would make others learn more.
Hope I expressed myself good enough, english is not my daily language. #927101

Larry Lawhead November 20, 2004

Well, I was going to stay out of this one, but when y'all question the photographer's "ethics and credibility", I have to pipe in. IMHO, Bob and Rhina's comments, while hardly "constructive", would be relevant if this image was entered in the "Photojournalism" catagory. Which BP (sadly) does not have.

Monika modified the original photograph to match her VISION as an artist. The photo is clearly labeled as being software modified, and no journalistinc standard is implied or appropriate. Artistic photography has always been about creating the image, NOT about precisily rendering reality.

I have many photography books, dating back to the 70's, which discuss in great detail how to achieve the kinds of effects now done in software. Everything from filters to darkroom techniques. But until they were done in software, I never heard any of this "It's no longer a photograph", whining.


Patricia A. Kuniega November 20, 2004

Rhina, I respect your profession immensely. The fact that you are not permitted to alter photos in any way brings comfort to me. Within the realm of journalistic photography this standard must apply.

Please keep in mind that the people who may employ digital techniques on this site are also photographers, many of them excellent ones. If you are immediately turned off to their work, then it would seem that you would refrain from commenting. We should not feel compelled to comment on photographs that we don't care for or are not qualified to judge. This is true whether the image appears in a constructive critique category or not. The problem is that from the beginning, neither you or Bob offered Monika any thoughtful critique on ways to improve her image, but rather dismissed it entirely from the start, using the column as a forum to voice displeasure over the broader subject of digitally manipulated images. Should Monika have chosen to have her work submitted to the Constructive Critique section, she deserved comments about her image and technique. It surely wasn't helpful that she was told that her work was not a photograph.

The digital manipulations that are presented on this site are not created from stock photography. The photo must belong to the photographer. The commonality here is that we all use a camera and its lenses and settings to capture what is before us. Hopefully our result is the very best photograph that we are capable of producing. The basis of any photo manipulation is that photograph, where the same rules of composition, color and lighting apply. But it is at this point in the process that our creative thoughts diverge and a photographer may choose or not choose to employ methods to render that image. Those who employ artistic rendering techniques to their work get tired of hearing that there is something "wrong" with their image and therefore they hid their mistakes through manipulation. This comes across as an elitest attitude that views the rendering process like plastic surgery, whereas the photographer may view it as just one of many enhancement opportunties available to them in the pursuit of artistic expression. If you don't like to belong to a site that permits both styles, you have a choice. If you choose to remain a member of that site, then learn about the processes that these artists are using and offer truly constructive criticism or refrain from commenting on images that employ techniques unfamiliar to you. Respectfully yours. #927417

Karma Wilson November 20, 2004


*****Patricia may call me ignorant, but as an editor of a high-distribution newspaper I must know all the rules and laws about manipulation, some set in stone for us news-media like it says in the Associated Press Stylebook (used by all in the field like our bible):

"The content of a photograph will NEVER be changed or manipulated in any way."***

And I reply, frankly my dear I don't give a .....

Who cares what the assosciated press bible says? I'm not planning on doing ANY photos for the associated press, and I'm not a journalist. Look through other magazines, such as Times, Vanity Fair, etc..etc... and you'll see a plethora of photoshop enhancement. It's a necessary skill if your plan on doing most types of photography other than photojournalism. This site is designed around that premise and says so in thier description. We all see where you're coming from, but your worries do not apply here in any way. So drop it. Monica did a wonderful job. Her picture was submitted in just the right area. I'd have a bigger problem if Bob or Rhina tried to enter an unaltered photo in the digital darkroom category!

Karma #927461

Protacio Serna November 20, 2004

Hey ….this is a great conversation.

What is missing here?

Nothing actually.

In fact, I have read all of the messages and tried to stay away from this thread, but trust me: it is just too good to stay out of it.

Digital photography and digital manipulation are not the same, but to many people they seem to be linked. And that is a problem, a big problem since not even photographers can deal with it, how we expect the rest of the people to see them as separate entities.

Recently I showed a series to a gallery owner. He kindly reviewed the portfolio and told me: “this is a photojournalistic work…a good one, but it isn’t art”. That same series was shown to journalist people, and they told me: “This is art”.

I am not a photojournalist, and I don’t intent to call myself an “artist”, but it is just a series I enjoyed doing, and I wanted to show it since that is what photography is about: to show images.

Even worst, (yes…it can get worst) when a group of photographers saw that series in an exhibition, I heard one of them say “to capture this one, I’m sure he fired at least 20 exposures”. I smiled.

That is what photography is about nowadays. We love doing it, we love sharing our vision, but then we spend a lot of time trying to make people understand that it isn’t easier in the digital era. We photographers are tempted to do something to improve our images, and viewers try to do something go diminish the effort that it took for an image to be made.

I got plenty of stories about this subject, and I just don’t want to bore you with my problems, but here’s one that I love to tell.

I submitted four pictures for a contest. One of them was second place, other was somewhere around fifth or sixth, third one got honorific mention, and the one I liked the most got a low score.

At the final show I was standing behind a couple of photographers who where talking about one of my pictures. One of them was a judge of that show, and he told to the other “look here, this stream of water was made with the brush in photoshop, you see?”. The other one agreed. You can imagine how I felt, but I just told them “I don’t recall doing what you just said”. They tuned around and asked me if that was my image. I said yes. Then the asked me how I made that picture. And I said “it wasn’t MADE sir. I took it with my camera”.

Same happened with the other two pictures. Judges thought that I placed a trailer and made a sunburst in photoshop. On the other image they thought that I made a great blue background to fake a lake and placed a dock in it. And I said: I’m a photographer. Why in the world would I want to put something that wasn’t there if I can make a picture? #927913

Protacio Serna November 20, 2004

(wow....what a long letter)


Where am I going with all this?
It is simple: we photographers are not ready to deal with this digital photo or digital manipulation thing.

I rest my case.

Ouch….I almost forgot. Monika: congrats on your finalist. I also think that it is a good image, but I’m sure it looks better without the filters….in my opinion.


Karma Wilson November 20, 2004


Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

You said, "Where am I going with all this?
It is simple: we photographers are not ready to deal with this digital photo or digital manipulation thing."

Photgraphers have been "dealing" with it for many years already. You'll find their work in galleries, popular magazines, posters, greeting cards, books, etc...etc...etc... Lots of photgraphers make good money dealing with it. I, for one, am dealing with it perfectly. :-) Some photographers are obviously not ready to deal with it. That's too bad really.

Have a good day!

Karma #927939

Hans Duggen November 20, 2004

Protacio. Nothing is new under the sun. Nice story you told, but I heard that kind of storys also in ancient times, when there was something nowadays called analogue photography.

I mean: when judges are focusing on the techniques in stead of the idea of a picture (photo). #927988

Protacio Serna November 20, 2004

Agree with you Hans, it isn't new, but with the digital manipulation people, judges, fellow photographers are even more suspicious about the photographic merit of the picture.

I also agree with you Karma, in fact I agree with every post I have read in this thread. It is just relative to what kind of photography each one of us likes to do.

So far, I’m standing in the middle. I’m not sure which way to go, but currently I enjoy analog (film), digital, polaroids, wet darkroom, digital darkroom,…well…I enjoy photography.

I have done sandwiches before, and I like the effect. It is something each one of us should try….just like Monika did.

PSerna #928189

Stephen Zacker November 21, 2004

All you have to do is visit Monika's Gallery to see how talented she is, both with and without digital manipulation. It's just like all these auto everything cameras, they do everything except compose the image.. obviously the most important part. Otherwise, a camera is just a light tight box without the eye of the person behind it. The computer is just another tool for adding creativity. It is nothing without the creativity of the person at the keys. I say, if the tools are available to create an amazing, fantastic, intriquing image.. then use them! After all, we aren't drawing on the walls of caves anymore! :-) #928973

Diane Dupuis November 26, 2004

Monika, congrats on your well deserved finalist.

I have to say I hate it when someone's photo thread is taken over by this ranting discussions between "purists" and non-purists.

Take it to the Q&A board people! Leave Monika's photo thread alone!

And get with the times. Photoshop is here to stay. This photo is in the Digital Darkroom category where it belongs. If you can't stand the manipulation that is acceptable at BP then take yourself to a "purist" site. We are NOT doing photo-journalism here! Now get over it!

Leanne M.E. Boyd November 27, 2004

Monika, I'm not going to get on the political bandwagon. I will state plainly that this is a great image, and congratulations on your POTD! #940220

To discuss, first log in or sign up (buttons are at top center of page).

Get Constructive Critiques

Sign up for an interactive online photography course to get critiques on your photos.


Did You Know?

BetterPhoto Websites: If you see an orange website link directly under the photographer's name, it's totally okay. It's not spam. The reason: BetterPhoto is the one that offers these personal photography websites. We are supporting our clients with those links.

Unavailable EXIF: If there is no other information but 'Unavailable' in the EXIF (meaning no EXIF data exists with the photo), the 'Unavailable' blurb is not displayed. If there is any info, it shows. Many photos have the EXIF stripped out when people modify the image and resave it, before uploading.


The following truth is one of the core philosophies of BetterPhoto:

I hear, I forget.
I see, I remember.
I do, I understand.

You learn by doing. Take your Nature and Landscape Photography up to a new level of understanding in my new online class - on sale now. Photo Contest Finalist

Copyright for this gallery photo belongs solely to Monika Sapek.
Images may not be copied, downloaded, or used in any way without the expressed, written permission of the photographer. Contact photographer via gallery
Log in to follow or message this photographer or report this photo.