Deadman's Chute

I like to know just for the info (maybe I would look into it).
I appreciate you disclosed.
I would not have noticed. As far as color goes for the water, I have no problem at all with adding color.
People reduce it (B&W) all the time for the effect so introducing color within reason is fine with me.
As far as the image, I might take a bit off the top (to just above the first 2 rocks on the left). The SS is nice and the color looks natural.

This is quite nice. Colors look natural and a fine comp. For me, I would like to know about the blend given it was not a DOF or exposure blend (which I don't care about), but don't care about the clone unless you put something there that wasn't there. Cloning out a telephone, branch, fence, house, etc doesn't bother me a bit and I don't need the disclosure. Everyone has their own standards when it comes to this stuff and those are mine. 

I really like the flow here Lon (pardon the pun), but I do like flow and eloquent exposure.  The color and overall scene look very natural as well as the blend.  Thanks for the disclosure. 

It looks quite natural to me, Lon.  I'm in the "I don't care" camp on cloning and blending.  I think if it's a composite, it should be disclosed.  The way I see it, honest people, make honest images.  I really like the flow and the texture of the rocks.  The touch of green, middle right,  is a nice touch.  Beautiful image.

I like this image quite a bit. The best part of the image is the water so that tells you how effective your blending turned out. It's not just the SS but the rich variety of colors that are in that water. I don't think it approaches the turquoise of a glaciated stream and even if the colors don't match perfectly a Sierra stream I don't think it matters. Since the water is already a representation of water due to slow exposure why should the colors be a perfect match of the original. I know what a perfectionist you are and prefer technical suggestions (although mostly from Preston and Harley). If you could add a bit more texture to white water at center bottom that would help. Also, darkening the rocks at top of frame on the right where there is a crack seems to help. The lrc looks great to me. 

Regarding the sharing of processing of an image - I generally think it's a good idea. I think it should be optional. The reason is that I often can't retrace the steps I took to do something. However I always am greatly appreciative of those with great skills who share them - John Williams, Harry Lichtman. The only issue for sharing that I can imagine is that the observer then focuses on what was done and becomes particularly critical of, say, the cloning area. Another words, if I'm looking at a Van Gogh does it really help me to be directed to the weakest part of his painting? Is it fair to him? But if the painter is looking for a review of a specific problem then he might want to point out where it is. So there are 2 goals to share processing (1) to teach the user (2) to get feedback from user. As you noted, it's a big subject. 

Now I have a question for you if you care to respond. I have noticed that you, Preston, and Harley each take the suggestions of one another seriously and implement them but rarely do so from others who take the time to do it. I am frankly puzzled by this. Is this because they are the ones that give the best suggestions or because your friendship has provided a trust that isn't there with others? The reason I bring it up is because it discourages others from commenting after a while. And, yes, I am stirring the pot.

Actually, this subject could be generalized and opened up further. Do we all have criticism that we take more seriously than others? Do we all have favored critiquers that we look forward to and largely ignore the rest? Probably. Is this just natural or should this be discouraged. Nothing in the list of critique recommendations give guidance on this.

Lon, I really like angle from which you photographed this lovely cascade. I do not know why I did not move a little further downstream: I was higher up, but I feel we both captured the essence of this place. Your composition really shows the water movement and how the rock affects the flow. Nicely done.

The color, especially the water, looks fine to me; perhaps a departure from reality, but is not that true of all photography? We interpret a scene as it fits with our emotions at the time.

With regard to disclosure of manipulations:

• Minor cloning/spotting need not be disclosed
• Adding elements that were not in the original capture should be disclosed
• Blending of differing exposures should be disclosed*
• Significant cloning/content aware move of elements should be disclosed
• Pano stitching should be disclosed
• Focus stacking for depth of field should be disclosed*.
• Significant cropping of the original frame should be disclosed.

*With regard to focus stacking: It is a toss-up whether or not it needs to be disclosed. In my opinion disclosing that is instructive in nature so that others can possibly apply the technique to their own images. The same could be said for blending of different exposures of the same scene.

The above is not to be taken as hard and fast rules for NPN, but only as suggestions as to what should, or need not be disclosed, and as such are only my personal criteria. Please remember that NPN has always been about the enjoyment of nature photography, the pursuit of excellence, and learning.
--P

Lon, this looks great.  A fine sense of movement and some good colors in the water set off well by the surrounding granite.  Both the colors and the shapes open up very well in the larger view.  I think that disclosing "significant" manipulations is important if we want to preserve the sense that nature photography is showing the reality of the scene.  Clearly, there are some things that can be captured that can't be seen (such as Dan K's night image of Canary Springs) and at time we need to manipulate what the camera captures to match what the eye sees (stacking is one of those, where the eye adjusts focus throughout the view, but the camera can't in a single frame).

Lon,
Great high Sierra scene and the processing looks good to me.  Would not have thought much about the water color if you didn't bring it up (looks natural enough to me).  As far as disclosures, I'm more concerned with the end result than the method of getting there, but I do think it's good to note certain things like exposure blending, etc.  

Lon, this is one of my favorites from your recent series. I love the balance of rock to water, and the shutter speed in the water looks excellent. Water color looks great and believable to me.

I always like to know what was done to an image, and especially in the context of a critique site like NPN. I think it helps to know what techniques are out there for creating images. I don't mind if certain things are not shared, like minimal cloning of stray leaves or the like. I frequently use two or more exposures for this type of scene due to the varying textures in different areas of the water. I don't feel like this needs to be disclosed, although I always do for the reason I mention above.

I think that if more significant compositing of images is done, like adding a different sky or even a sky from the exact same view but maybe hours apart, that should be disclosed, and the image can be judged as a composite image rather than as a moment in time. I have no problem with people creating these composite images, so long as they're not trying to pass it off as a capture of a moment in time.