Wow I like the colors in this shot. Reminds me of the canals in LA for some reason.

The DOF gives it a surreal quality. Great warm colors!

Nice use of depth of field to superimpose the lanterns.

Well, I'll try this again...

It always crashes on me. David, your site doesn't like me.

Love this shot. The autumn colors and light are wonderful as is the DoF.

I agree with what everyone else has said...the colors (nice autumn foliage), reflection, sharpness of the lanterns. I like how the lanterns' colors sort of match the background tree colors.

-Tristan

Love the way that the lanterns look as if they're hanging from the edge of the picture, as well as the colours of them that echo with the autumn tints behind.

Excellent! Glad the wedding went well too.

There's something more than just depth of field that makes this eerie and wonderful. I think it's the lighting -- the way the lanterns are lit in that twilight setting looks artificial, cinematic, and riveting. Great choice. This'd make a really great print.

What makes this shot so interesting is that the focus range is backwards of what is normally done. ie. normally the scenery would be in focus and the lanterns would be out of focus.
Very nice.

great saturation of color and dof. I just love this shot.

Another horrible shot. ;)

I like the way you've placed the white boathouse at the golden mean- the lanterns lead off from it. It's very similar to 'hanging around' (5th October) in that the lanterns frame and isolate the distance from you. The bottom RH corner is rather empty- needed a convenient narrow boat to complete the composition. I'm sure you you had nothing else to do but wait for one! ;-)

rich shot. looks like a pleasant part of the world.

Dave, really glad the wedding went well and that you are enjoying the 20D. I wouldn't want to copy everyone else so here's my honest opinion :-)... I think the image is overly saturated, and on my monitor the lanterns look overly sharpened. Similarly the white house seems overexposed (probably impossible to expose the whole thing properly). So in summary, an interesting shot but I'd be interested in what the original looked like. I think its the post-processing which causes me to question it. Just my opinion - its a bit hyprocritical as I'm certainly no PS or photography expert! Keep up the good work.

there seems to be a line across the sky at the base of the two hanging items. what is that---sky effect or a PS issue? looks unnatural.

Isn't this line across the sky a blurred phone line ?
Nice shot, with original composition, and warm colors.
I like the crispness of the two lanterns, too
This 17/40mm lens seems to be really sharp.

I always figured that if I was going to buy a camera that's more than $2000, I wouldn't need to use photoshop.. Otherwise, why would I buy such an expensive camera when I can achieve the same results with a $150 3 megapixel pos? But I haven't bought a camera that expensive.. Therefore I still post-process.. :) I just bought a Canon A-1, with which I don't plan to use photoshop..

Sorry, I was getting off track here.. I really like the autumn colours in this one and the lighting on the buildings. I just wish the focus was the other way around.. the background scenery looks more interesting than those dagned lanterns..

very beautiful picture, i like it a lot!

very well done! love the gorgeous light captured and the colors

HTML is allowed. Leave a clear line between paragraphs.

Sorry, I accidentaly hit the clicker. Anyway, I love the colors in this shot, they're so rich and deep. It looks like you had beautiful weather for the wedding. Nice job.

I love the use of DOF to give this shot it's character and presence and the wonderful colors from fall.

Also, have to say I disagree with miklos on the sharpening count. There are many things that go into making a shot sharp and the camera body is only one small aspect of the whole process. As important or more important are the stability of the camera, the lens used and subject movement. The CCD and format you save in are definitely limiting factors, but I wouldn't buy a camera body and expect it solve all my problems. Also, in this specific case, David is resizing the image for display, so the reduction in size yields a reduction in sharpness, which a little sharpening can often bring back.

I'm all for photoshop wizardry that helps a photographer express the mood or character of the scene. It's nothing but part of the art in my book.

Ben: I'm not too sure how your comment relates to what I said... actually I'm not even sure if any words in my previous comment resemble the word "sharp"...

Ah, I see. I assumed you were referring to Peter's comments about sharpness. And we all know what happens when you assume. *sigh*.

Sorry about that. :)

Thanks everyone.

peterv: lol ;-)

peter (crymble): I take your point, at least partially, about the saturation and the sharpness, and the image that's up now has both of them toned down a little. As for the 'over-exposed' white house (which is actually a boat house), I don't agree. Part of my motivation for this shot was to go for something not quite real, so over-emphasising the house was intentional. Take a look at the text on my next entry for a longer discussion of this kind of point.

chuck: pierre is right, it's a phone line.

miklos: see my next entry.