Three Black Skimmers

A spectacular capture! Kudos!

Initially the image grabs my attention but there is something not quite right, my eye never stops wondering since there is way too much of the birds that are blurred or out of focus. It is basically a nice photo and composition but knowing just how difficult it is to get good crisp and dynamic photos, especially with a very long lenses, I do have a good appreciation for this particular one. (I'm guessing it was the best one out of numerous takes???) I also agree with another critique that the crop forces a vertical presentation while the motion is horizontal, this might be what I am interpreting as not quite right.
By the way, nice portfolio.

Other than the second skimmer's beak being partially hidden by the others tail, I like this a lot. No, I don't think the crop to be too tight at bottom. There's more than enough reflection showing for balance

Holy smokes! As an inexperienced 'critiquer', this discussion has a lot of educational content, which is wonderful for someone at my level. I am still responding to photos pretty much with my gut. My initial reaction was 'Wow'! Especially as I have never witnessed these birds in action. Immediately followed by the desire for more, which is not necessarily bad. I would love to see it wider and horizontal, with that uniform background all around them, their water trails and their reflections. Just my very, very humble opinion. Overall, I love this shot! Its amazing. And I like the color and focus. This would make a beautiful wall canvas.

Very fine image,working at lots of different levels.

See the picture smaller and suddenly you see a fierce fight of two gangs of birds ....

My thoughts on this POW haven't changed: I admire David's skills for having captured it, imperfections and all. But I do think a more realistic color palate for air and water would make it more eye-appealing. For those PN members who do not have or use post-processing tools, I've attached a variation. Thanks - Alberta

My thoughts on this POW haven't changed: I admire David's skills for having captured it, imperfections and all. But I do think a more realistic color palate for air and water would make it more eye-appealing. For those PN members who do not have or use post-processing tools, I've attached a variation. Thanks - Alberta

David
I think your image is full of beauty. I'm not a nature photographer, so I applaud your effort, for the patience and technical skill....

On another note, I love the original version better. I have noticed this growing trend to download and manipulate another photographer's work. I believe this is wrong without permission from the photographer. It's called "copyright" , for those who have forgotten why we need it.....

Phil, while I'm not a fan of the practice, in the PN terms of agreement we have all agreed to allow our photos to be downloaded and worked on by other people on PN. PN considers this reasonable learning practice. It is by no means a copyright infringement to do it on this site. That having been said, I usually don't find the practice helpful and would never do so unless asked by the photographer and unless I thought there was no way to offer help except to show something specific. Generally, I prefer photographers, if criticized and if they find merit in the criticism, to find their own visual solutions rather than to be shown one. I try to keep my critiquing to responses, even if they are negative, rather than specific suggestions for improvement. If a negative response of mine rings true for someone, I'd much prefer seeing how they would do it differently than showing them how I would. Much more interested in their evolving vision. That being said, I don't fault anyone or hold it against them that they do things differently from me, especially if they're following the established procedure of the site. People have valid reasons for thinking it's good practice to visually show what they would prefer as an alternative and I've heard some very arguments for the practice over the years. It's just a difference of approach, I think.

Ironically, what I have noticed is that about 95% of the time when someone shows an alternative or what they think is an improvement, it's not. It often will undermine the original vision in some significant way. Many shown improvements tend to make the work look more familiar, more like the generic work we're used to seeing and used to accepting as good. Often, these alternatives take away some important aspect of uniqueness while leaning toward a more mass appeal, which is not often desirable, except maybe for commercial purposes. I may often agree that something is off, but just often disagree with the proposed "solution."

I kind of liked the original color cast (I was a little surprised that I did), until I saw Alberta's version. So I'm glad she posted it. I think it can be interesting when people show us their tweaks to the POW and see absolutely nothing wrong in doing so.

Understood. But here's a counterpoint. Photography is not a matter of comparison or a matter of "which one's better." It's about vision and expression. Just because you see something you like better, doesn't mean that someone needs to or even should consider doing it differently than they've done it. We're not always looking for something better or for an alternative. Sometimes, we're just looking to actualize through a photo what we see or saw in our mind's eye. There may be plenty that others would consider better or differently. Which may be of no concern to what the photographer thought was expressed in the moment and through the photo.

If you appreciated the original color cast for what it was, that may be all you'll ever need. There may be no gain in "until I saw . . . "

Fred, thank you for pointing out the terms for this practice. I wasn't aware of this.
I have read many comments and feedbacks, on this site, but have never read from a POW recipient that they thought an altered version of their vision was an improvement. PN is a wonderful site, and I have no beef here. I'm just from a different school of thought. "You can look, you can comment, you can even throw eggs at it, but don't touch".

Phil, thanks, I'm pretty much of your school of thought, except for the eggs, unless they're strictly metaphorical!

My goodness, the entirety of these POW discussions is about whether it's good or bad, better or worse, would it better if this were done differently, etc.

So, someone actually shows us how one aspect could be treated differently, leaving it to us to judge whether it's better or worse for the change, if we want to, and that's a bad thing? No, that's a good thing.

I would submit that a very good way of sharpening your "vision and expression" is through comparison.

Martin, I don't think that's true. I think some regular participants here often react emotionally and describe what they see, sometimes putting photos in historical context, sometimes talking about how the photos relate to the larger portfolios of the photographer. No, not everyone talks about whether the photos are good or bad, better or worse, or speculates on whether it would be better if done differently. I agree that that is how these discussions MOSTLY proceed. I'm offering a different way of doing things. Agree or disagree, think another way of talking about photos and critiquing is OK or not. But please accept that judging is not the way everyone does or should approach a critique. All I would ask is that you consider it, and not reject that way out of hand.

Like I said, I was much more adamant about not re-working someone's photos until I heard some good arguments in favor of the practice from people I respected. I still don't do it but I understand it better and can see the value others find in it. Perhaps some folks who hadn't considered a value-free way of critiquing will find some value in that as well. Who knows?

Another way of looking at this exchange, Fred, is not that I was rejecting your way, but that you were rejecting Alberta's way. There'd been a lot of discussion of the picture's coloration, was it too strong, was it realistic, was it pleasing or not, was it pleasing at first sight, but not something that would wear well, etc.

So, Alberta posted a version with the background color much muted for us to see, which, I think, is a perfectly legitimate way to continue this particular aspect of the discussion.

Martin, I hope you will re-read what I wrote and take note of the fact that I didn't address Alberta once. You may be confusing my response to Phil with his response to Alberta. And you may be confusing my stating a preference for something with rejecting something else. You, on the other hand, made a demonstrably false statement about what the "entirety" of these threads is about.

I apologize, Fred, if I mischaracterized anything you said. But I do think that posting alternate variations of pictures under discussion is a perfectly legitimate way to proceed.

Thanks, Martin.

One thing I see too often is critique about colour.  Unless you have your monitor calibrated correctly what "you" see and what "I" see and what the "OP" saw when they took/edited the photo are entierly different things.

My screen is calibrated, the OP colour is not that heavily saturated and doesn't bleed too much.

Turn my calibration off, hey-presto! I get a beautifully oversaturated pastel-pink hue which the majority of you will be seeing.

Looking at the alternative image posted in the same way as above.
Too stark and cold when looking at it with calibration settings on.
Warmer and quite nice, with calibration settings off.  But the OP is warmer and more inviting.

It's all good and well to play with photoshop (I would never use the auto tools btw) and to discuss colour but it is as subjective a conversation as is the photo itself.

You need to keep this in mind when discussing within such a large audience of differing screens, colour temperatures, calibrated/uncalibrated etc.. this is a minefield that has potentially misleading concequences.

My screen is calibrated for print.  What I see is what this would look like if printed.
My screen is calibrated for true-life. What I also see is how this was "probably" originally photocraphed.

With above settings turned off, my screen is the same as the billion other screens out there, heavily oversaturated, too much brightness and contrast, highlight and blackpoints around 15 and 85% not 5 and 95%.

This alone could make me post a comment about colour that "actually" may not exist!

Not referring to this image specifically, just in a general context.

Fred, verbally re-doing a photo of the week isn't much different than physically carrying out those perceived improvements with post-processing. If you've been at PN for 5 years or more, I'm 99.9% sure that at some time you've "re-done" a photo.

David - I certainly didn't mean to offend. Any comments I make (or variations I post) at PN represent my humble opinion only. Admittedly, I am no expert and have little formal training. I just try to learn and have a bit of fun.

Alberta, fyi, I don't think I have ever re-done someone else's photo on PN. There's always the chance I'm wrong and not remembering correctly. I don't have a clue what would make you suspect otherwise.

As for the description you quoted, the photographer of that photo had talked about what his intentions were. I wasn't coming up with a vision for his photo out of my own sensibility, but making suggestions based on what he said he was feeling and said he was trying to express, which I thought he didn't quite execute. If you notice, I didn't tell him specifically what to do at all. I used very general words and descriptions. I can see how my words could be construed the way you're construing them when taken out of context. Even in context, I recognize that they are suggestive rather than reactive (which I try to limit), though I don't think I claimed never to make circumspect verbal suggestions.

I've expressed the difference I perceive in verbal suggestions vs. visual ones at other times. To summarize, I think verbal suggestions are more suggestive and can leave much more room for the visual interpretation and imagination and execution by the photographer receiving the suggestion. I think that's the key to good critique, allowing the photographer to put into visual action the kinds of suggestions one might make. To me, a verbal suggestion is more like a clue. A re-do of someone's work is more like an answer. IMO, good critique helps you learn, visually, how to find your own answers and doesn't find them for you.

I hope you can see the difference between suggesting someone find depth in the window and find some way to draw special attention to it (who has just said how important he felt the window is to his photo) and showing him specifically what and how I would do that. There are a million ways to draw attention to a window and to add depth to it, some of which have nothing at all to do with the window. I'd much rather he play around, if he thinks it's a reasonable suggestion. I'm more curious to see where he might take it than in showing him where I might. It's his vision.

I'm very tied to my photos and probably possessive of them, though I love sharing them with viewers and think of them as being alive. I don't mind hearing all kinds of reactions to my photos. But I identify too much with my own work to want to see someone else re-working my photos. It would be somewhat like watching someone else make love to my boyfriend. Since I feel that way, I obviously want to give the same deference to others.

Thanks Martin.

Fred, we should agree to disagree.

PN members, you've either enjoyed or tolerated by presence for 6 years now. I have, from time to time, re-done your posted images. My helpful score is nothing to be ashamed of. If you feel strongly that you never, ever will benefit from my showing you an alternative, please write to me. I do have an open mind.

Alberta:
There are forums where the photographer ask for help, both visual and technical. So, as Fred pointed out, the downloading and manipulation is a practice done on PN. My comments were about the POW forum, where the photographer doesn't ask or choose the image selected. I admitted that I'm of another mindset, and that this practice seems dis-respectful to the efforts and vision of a photographer, regardless of how subjectively good or bad the image is....

Most of us, who have been shooting for a number of years , know the changes we would make or wish we could make to our own work, but who else would know? In reading several post of the past recipients, I don't get the feeling that photographers are grateful for another version of their work. I sense that the people doing the critiques are Ok with it because it gives them more to talk about. Ironically, the most talked about aspect is whether it's been manipulated, and post processing...Honestly, did you learn photography by someone manipulating your photo and presenting it back to you for the whole world to see?

I don't feeling you, or any of the others, have any ill intent. As you stated, "You're having fun", and PN should be fun for all, although some don't play well with others. I am a commercial photographer, and in my world, we don't touch each others work...we steal their ideas :)