Here's the deal:
http://theanseladamsgallery.blogspot.co ... keith.html

I doubt it, but maybe enhanced the colors a bit. My friend too the same shot last year. It can be captured only around this time of year due to the position of the sun in February evening. It catches the waterfall around valentines weekend or so.
This link explain the Horsetail falls photos:
http://shutterbug.com/techniques/outdoo ... ocations/#

"Horsetail Fall (1,000 feet)
Flows: approximtely December through April.

Horsetail Fall is famous for appearing to be on fire when it reflects the orange glow of sunset in mid- to late-February. It falls off of the east side of El Capitan and is best seen from just east of El Capitan."

It's a classic shot when the light provides this effect. Galen Rowell shot it on film in 1973: http://www.mountainlight.com/gallery.classics/images.html

Wow! That's cool any way you slice it.

That's funny! This picture was in the Fresno Bee today too.

That particular image isn't that far from possible reality unlike many of the sunset/sunrise sky pics. Regardless the real event was likely less impressive like much current landscape and nature photography digitally captured and processed.

So a general comment about the state of these kind of images. Many images web posted and or printed for public sales are well beyond what might be naturally experienced. They are way over the top despite the blubberings of others who do likewise or their urban public audiences that have little clue or experience. Those capturing the digital images have no reference to process images to and in front of their computers tend to saturate and up contrast to the maximum they suspect is still within the realm of the possible. Everyone trying to out saturate and contrast others while trying not to be so gaudy as to be criticized by like peers. With relatively neutral transparency film properly exposed on non contrasty scenes, one always has the slide as a reference for later processing. With digital unless using pricy complex calibration only commercial product photographers use, one only has vauge ever increasingly fading memory. In fact talented pro graphic artists can Frankenstein such images into their pseudo reality from their urban abodes without ever having set foot in the mountains. This was all possible a dozen years ago in fact. Tricks like replacing whole boring skies with exciting clouds and color. Nothing wrong with creative artwork as long as one is honest about such with one's audience. However few manipulative types provide any information. With the current status quo of not being up front and honest with peers and public audiences about how images are processed all this is inevitable and will only get worse.

http://www.davidsenesac.com/david_philosophy1.html

The photos and explanation ran in today's Modesto Bee. Here is the link to the Fresno Bee article: http://www.fresnobee.com/832/story/1824741.html

Dingus Milktoast wrote:Taken this past Sunday:

Looks weird, somehow altered.

is this the product of digital software image enhancement???

DMT

Especially if we are talking about art as opposed to photojournalism, manipulation on one level or another is mandatory. Manipulation in a wet darkroom or digital is not any different then a painter with a brush choosing this color or that, leaving one tree out of a scene or not. Even removing a discarded soft drink can within a scene before the photographer releases the shutter is manipulation... sounds extreme, but those advocating "zero" manipulation will leave the trash. Using a wide angle lens or a telephoto lens instead of a "normal" focal length is manipulation. Color from one day to the next is never the same. Neither is contrast. To me, such talk of manipulation or alteration is pointless because ALL photographs are manipulated or altered.

The difference between photographic art and a "snapshot" is the ability to have emotional connotation. It is about understanding what turns us on and composing the graphic elements within any given scene such that it pushes our "buttons". To do this effectively, manipulation is mandatory! Always has been. The question should be: Was the photograph manipulated or altered effectively?

My answer to that question would be "no". I don't like the sky, it has no detail whatsoever. Everything within a photographic composition is of equal importance, and if it is not, it should not be included. IMO, crop out the sky and the snow, and one will have more effectively manipulated this photograph.

Bearflag got it right with his previous link:

Here's the deal:
http://theanseladamsgallery.blogspot.co ... keith.html

Go to Flikr and do a search and you will see plenty of examples
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=horsetail+fall

peninsula >>>"Especially if we are talking about art as opposed to photojournalism, manipulation on one level or another is mandatory. Manipulation in a wet darkroom or digital is not any different then a painter with a brush choosing this color or that, leaving one tree out of a scene or not. Even removing a discarded soft drink can within a scene before the photographer releases the shutter is manipulation... sounds extreme, but those advocating "zero" manipulation will leave the trash."

David ...Manipulation isn't at all mandatory. Mandatory for what result? If you are talking about making boring images into attractive images you may have a point. Outdoor and landscape photography doesn't need to be manipulated to be aesthetically appealing. I see much wonderful beauty outdoors. If one can capture such as is why the demand to further enhance such? As though one cannot capture an appealing aesthetic outdoor image, straight process it for fidelity and result in a wonderful image that appeals to the public? People were doing that long before this current digital age with post processing or even before Velvia changed saturation expectations. Kodak EPN100 film has long been considered so reasonably accurate that commercial photographers made straight shots long before Photoshop even existed. Kodachrome, Provia, and Astia are other relatively color acurate films when properly exposed outdoors. If you can see outdoor beauty with your eyes, and use the right tools that can reasonably capture that light if reasonably exposed, why can't the result be appealing?

Although one can capture beautiful natural images without manipulation, photographic manipulation is as acceptable also as it is for creative oil painters. The issue is for photographers that manipulate to be honest at least in some small way with their public audience about what they are doing instead of the current status quo of saying nothing. The usual mistake of those who manipulate when debating those that don't is to infer that those that prefer natural images are condemning those that manipulate. Quite ok...but just be honest about it. Now it is true that I personally value reasonably naturally captured photographic images much more than manipulated images. And indeed so will a fair number in our public audience especially those who are not themselves photographers while good numbers of others could care less how artsy an image is.

peninsula >>>"Using a wide angle lens or a telephoto lens instead of a "normal" focal length is manipulation. Color from one day to the next is never the same. Neither is contrast. To me, such talk of manipulation or alteration is pointless because ALL photographs are manipulated or altered."

David ...Hard to believe some still toss out that argument. It is true normal unblocked field of view of two human eyes don't see as a telephoto lens sees. But if one looks through a window and stands at varying distances from a window, one will have the exact same perspectives from tele to normal to wide. How wonderful indeed and seems rather natural to this person.

peninsula >>>"The difference between photographic art and a "snapshot" is the ability to have emotional connotation. It is about understanding what turns us on and composing the graphic elements within any given scene such that it pushes our "buttons". To do this effectively, manipulation is mandatory! Always has been. The question should be: Was the photograph manipulated or altered effectively? My answer to that question would be "no". I don't like the sky, it has no detail whatsoever. Everything within a photographic composition is of equal importance, and if it is not, it should not be included. IMO, crop out the sky and the snow, and one will have more effectively manipulated this photograph."

David ...That's your personal style and philosophy penninsula and perfectly acceptable. But not the only way one might pursue photographic art. To demand that is the only path to successful photographic imagery is limited thinking and ignores the work of many including the body of work of this person.

http://www.davidsenesac.com/david_philosophy1.html

David Senesac Photography
http://www.davidsenesac.com

Kodak EPN100 film has long been considered so reasonably accurate that commercial photographers made straight shots long before Photoshop even existed. Kodachrome, Provia, and Astia are other relatively color acurate films when properly exposed outdoors. If you can see outdoor beauty with your eyes, and use the right tools that can reasonably capture that light if reasonably exposed, why can't the result be appealing?

Although one can capture beautiful natural images without manipulation, photographic manipulation is as acceptable also as it is for creative oil painters. The issue is for photographers that manipulate to be honest at least in some small way with their public audience about what they are doing instead of the current status quo of saying nothing. The usual mistake of those who manipulate when debating those that don't is to infer that those that prefer natural images are condemning those that manipulate. Quite ok...but just be honest about it. Now it is true that I personally value reasonably naturally captured photographic images much more than manipulated images. And indeed so will a fair number in our public audience especially those who are not themselves photographers while good numbers of others could care less how artsy an image is.

First off, the way one sees color can be as different from one to another as is the light of day. "Relatively color accurate film" holds no water in my way of thinking. Believable color is the best phrase I can come up, and the problem with using the term "believable" is I have witnessed unbelievable color. ALL images are manipulated by the framing we choose, by the time of day we choose to shoot, by the choice of lens focal length, by the type of film or brand of the digital sensor. Again, to me, it is not a question of "Do we manipulate or not," it is a question of "effective manipulation".

On another level of manipulation, I feel no moral obligation to resist cloning out a rock that touches into the frame edge if I think it is distracting from the emotional content of any given landscape. If someone wants to clone objects into a landscape and they can do it effectively, I'm fine with that, too (it does not have to be my cup of tea). Artsy is a negative word in your context, I would prefer think of creating an image that effectively conveys my sense of emotion. It is not about the photograph, it is about me. For me, landscape photography is all about merging the technical and artistic. I'm not interested in accurate reproductions because they don't exist.

David ...Hard to believe some still toss out that argument. It is true normal unblocked field of view of two human eyes don't see as a telephoto lens sees. But if one looks through a window and stands at varying distances from a window, one will have the exact same perspectives from tele to normal to wide. How wonderful indeed and seems rather natural to this person.

I do not agree. I can't look through a cutout and "see" in 14mm wide angle, nor can I see the compression caused in landscape by a 200mm telephoto. I have used cutouts to choose my lens focal length when studying the graphic elements of a landscape before me, and what I see on the monitor or in print are considerably different then when peering through "a window". In terms of sense for depth, they are not even close.

David ...That's your personal style and philosophy penninsula and perfectly acceptable. But not the only way one might pursue photographic art.

I absolutely agree. I'm not trying to demand of anyone what they like in terms of art.

To demand that is the only path to successful photographic imagery is limited thinking and ignores the work of many including the body of work of this person.

Reread what I have said as appears you have missed my point in what I would characterize as a defensive reply on your behalf. I never made any demands regarding the only path to successful photography. My point is, whether you agree or not, all photographs are manipulated to one degree or another (call it an opinion if makes you feel any better). The degree of manipulation and its effectiveness are open to artistic license. Perhaps you don't believe in the concept of artistic license, and if you do not, I'd say you are the one ignoring many bodies of work.

penninsula >>>"Reread what I have said as appears you have missed my point in what I would characterize as a defensive reply on your behalf. I never made any demands regarding the only path to successful photography."

David ...You should not have used the term "mandatory":

penninsula >>>"Especially if we are talking about art as opposed to photojournalism, manipulation on one level or another is mandatory."

David ...If you didn't really mean mandatory which is what you now seem to be hinting at I can accept that.

So you don't believe looking through cutouts is the same optically? You need to study your optics basics. And why resort to an ultra extreme l4mm lens to make a point? Hardly bears on usual 99% of photography. Note one can cause distortions none the less by tilting lenses up or down when pointed at otherwise perpendicular subjects. Such is obvious when imaging buildings or trees that causes lines at edges to diverge. That is why a view camera lens is a better tool.

As for the term manipulation its obvious you dislike the term and in order to feel less uneasy about it want to smear its meaning to include every process and creative decision made during capture. That an overgeneralization of the term that a few people tried to push long ago but really doesn't have much a following. We photographers don't use the term like that. I could spend a couple critical pages on that usage like I have in the past but will instead point you to do some reading on your own. Manipulation in photography has considerable history of discussion. NANPA is arguably the most important organization of pro nature and landscape photographers. Kenan Ward is a most prominent photographer speaking in behalf of that organization:

http://www.nanpa.org/committees/ethics/manip_con.php

One could spend all week reading web essays and web discussions online on these issues. The subject is especially explored at the university level today for all involved in media. More general guidelines:

http://asmp.org/tutorials/21st-century-worries.html

http://www.nppa.org/professional_develo ... ation.html

http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester ... ions1.html

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/r ... _truth.cfm

David Senesac Photography
http://www.davidsenesac.com

you could read all that... or get the summary from david pogue...

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/photoshop-and-photography-when-is-it-real/

Of course, your answer may be something like, “It depends on the purpose of the photo.” If you’re a news photographer, you (and your audience) would probably be O.K. with tweaks to the color and contrast, but that’s it. On the other hand, if you’re an advertising photographer, you and your audience would probably have no problem with anything on the list above.

IMHO, whether or not it was "manipulated" is meaningless. All images are approximations of reality and ALL are manipulated in some way. Different films, different lenses, different exposure and aperture, etc. all change the scene. A reasonable discussion might be about what types of manipulation is acceptable for a given application, but all photos have been manipulated.