Constructive critiques welcome; shot aboard a cruise ship.

Michael, the B&W version is my favorite so far. It allows the eye to focus on the patterns and textures without the added burden of evaluating colors. It also places more emphasis on texture to give meaning and interest to the image, which is where the sky, water, and wood of the chairs are strongest. I note the fairly strong haloing artifacts from your PP. I know these are sometimes unavoidable. When this is the case, and the image is worth the effort, I'll go back and use a clone stamp to clean up the halos. Otherwise, I think this is about as powerful as one could desire, and has a very nice balance, flow, and feel. Well done!

Michael, the B&W version is my favorite so far. It allows the eye to focus on the patterns and textures without the added burden of evaluating colors. It also places more emphasis on texture to give meaning and interest to the image, which is where the sky, water, and wood of the chairs are strongest. I note the fairly strong haloing artifacts from your PP. I know these are sometimes unavoidable. When this is the case, and the image is worth the effort, I'll go back and use a clone stamp to clean up the halos. Otherwise, I think this is about as powerful as one could desire, and has a very nice balance, flow, and feel. Well done!

 

+1 I agree with all the strengths and issues that David talks about. This is, by far, my favorite.

Depends what the photographer is after. The original had realism, potential narrative, and softness. It had conceptual and compositional problems and color cast issues. The latest black and white is harsher and appears more manufactured. The sharpness, through various means, is ramped up. While the color cast in the original was a bit burdensome to my eye and could have easily been adjusted to work differently, the color itself was not at all a burden to me. It's not always the case, but it's often the case, that when haloing artifacts appear, it's because the sharpening has been overdone. I usually find that by backing off on what is causing such strong sharpening will alleviate a lot of the haloing, which can then be much more easily dealt with if it still exists. When I look at the water in the original compared to the water in the final version, even though I had lots of problems with the original, the one thing I'd say for sure is that the original water looks like water and the final version does not. It looks like some combination of strong contrast and texture, but not water. I know it's water because of the context but it sure doesn't feel like water to me.

IHMO, the original photo looked fine to me. I liked the 'blues'.

 

I like the idea of getting feedback (critiques) from viewers/colleagues but sometimes - as my impression is in this - "critique" tends to be become criticism and/or subjective suggestions as to how others would PP the photo.

 

@michaellinder: I suggest that you consider the feedback - even opinions and suggestions - from others at your leisure. I also suggest that you decide which - if any - tweaks you want to make. There are no "experts" (except yourself) on how your final photo should look.

 

Just saying,

 

Mike

...When I look at the water in the original compared to the water in the final version, even though I had lots of problems with the original, the one thing I'd say for sure is that the original water looks like water and the final version does not. It looks like some combination of strong contrast and texture, but not water. I know it's water because of the context but it sure doesn't feel like water to me.

 

I've spent many days at sea and I find the water in the OP and in the B&W versions equally convincing. In the B&W, there seems to be more OOF water near the horizon, which I would have preferred sharp. I see the balance shift from the color version, which says to me, "Look at that beautiful blue water" to the B&W saying, "This is a nice place to sit." I'm not sure which story is preferred by the OP.

I've spent many days at sea

I suggest most of us have enough experience with the sea to be able to assess and describe what we're seeing in a picture of it. I doubt aesthetic disagreements on the portrayal of the water here have much to do with quantity of days spent at sea. :)

I suggest that you consider the feedback - even opinions and suggestions - from others at your leisure. I also suggest that you decide which - if any - tweaks you want to make. There are no "experts" (except yourself) on how your final photo should look.

 

Mike, you've really pegged it. After trying to incorporate suggestions when they were made, my final version is a departure from that method.

After trying to incorporate suggestions when they were made, my final version is a departure from that method.

Part of what they try to teach us in design school is the art of "lateral thinking". What I have come to appreciate, and the paradigm to which I believe Michael is referring, is that the whole synergy of offering a photo and receiving feedback can get wheels turning which we might otherwise dismiss. I don't think Michael has slavishly tried to incorporate every comment. That would be impossible, as much of what is shared becomes mutually exclusive. Rather, the give and take creates new ways for us to see our images, instead of only through the lens of our own perception and history. This, then, can trigger insights and pathways to new solutions, solutions which are anything but a linear derivation of our previous efforts.

 

It is absolutely clear to me that we all exhibit a vast variety of aesthetic, technical, and critical priorities. As said so often, this forum is not about fixing others' work, it is about sharing perceptions and ideas that will enlighten us all and enhance our abilities as photographers. Michael may have multiple versions of this image that satisfy him. What we think does not matter, really, except to the degree that our participation helps Michael (and the rest of us) experience grow and improvement.

Part of what they try to teach us in design school is the art of "lateral thinking". What I have come to appreciate, and the paradigm to which I believe Michael is referring, is that the whole synergy of offering a photo and receiving feedback can get wheels turning which we might otherwise dismiss. I don't think Michael has slavishly tried to incorporate every comment. That would be impossible, as much of what is shared becomes mutually exclusive. Rather, the give and take creates new ways for us to see our images, instead of only through the lens of our own perception and history. This, then, can trigger insights and pathways to new solutions, solutions which are anything but a linear derivation of our previous efforts.

 

It is absolutely clear to me that we all exhibit a vast variety of aesthetic, technical, and critical priorities. As said so often, this forum is not about fixing others' work, it is about sharing perceptions and ideas that will enlighten us all and enhance our abilities as photographers. Michael may have multiple versions of this image that satisfy him. What we think does not matter, really, except to the degree that our participation helps Michael (and the rest of us) experience grow and improvement.

 

David, especially given your background in exacting fields (architecture and design), you have one helluva handle on both art and photography. I am grateful.

I suggest most of us have enough experience with the sea to be able to assess and describe what we're seeing in a picture of it. I doubt aesthetic disagreements on the portrayal of the water here have much to do with quantity of days spent at sea. :)

 

The sea "at sea" can be very different from the sea "at shore." Both versions, to me, say "at sea." I wish focus at the horizon were better, or I'm not interpreting the story correctly, perhaps.

Aye Aye Cap'n.

I am grateful.

You are welcome, but I, likewise, am both grateful for and a bit overwhelmed by your praise. You are too kind.

You are welcome, but I, likewise, am both grateful for and a bit overwhelmed by your praise. You are too kind.

 

David, you need to know that there are only a few photographers on PN who are eager to share their artistry, knowledge, etc., with those of us (myself included) who aren't at the same level. You clearly are one.

Phil, thanks. You not only are a photographer. Also you are a philosopher and poet.