Starfish Swirl

Sometimes less is more and more is too much and this is too much.

This just doesn't do it for me. Sorry. There's a very bland sky, the swirl appears to have been processed in. There seems to be too much filling the frame, especially the many starfish. The star at lower left is out of focus as well

I actually quite like the image, although I find it just slightly underexposed in my opinion.

There are parts of this I like, and parts I don't.

I sort of like the overall composition, and I like the (as another poster calls it) the near-far look. I like the colors, particularly the contrast in colors between the starfish and the rocks. I also like the way parts of the rocks seem to mirror the arms of the starfish. The sky looks realistic to me, rather than bland.

What I don't like are what appear to be sharpening artifacts, especially where the distant rocks meet the sky. That's always been one no-no that I can't get past when looking at any photograph. And for me, the photograph is...Just. Too. Small. In a scene like this, I want to see more detail. It might have even worked better as a horizontal composition, rather than a vertical. Or maybe even a pano.

And last but not least, the water and the "mysterious swirl". I'm not saying it isn't real, but it looks phony and a bit heavy-handed. As someone else mentions, perhaps a different exposure time would have given a better/different result.

Overall, it almost works for me, but almost doesn't really count. With a different exposure and a different layout, I'd probably look at it more, but as it is now, it's a one- or two-look photograph for me.

although there are a few minor things - I agree with a previous poster in that the soft starfish in the lower left corner, I still would put a print of this on my wall. Nice shot. Wish I had taken it.

The soft focus on the starfish on the left is due to it being under moving water during a long exposure. The vortex in the foreground pool is caused by the same effect, the foam on the surface has spun around in the pool while the shutter was open. There is another recent example in the photographer's portfolio with some foam leaving blurred trails around a rock formation.

I could easily be mistaken but I took John's original comment to mean that he thought the effect gave the visual impression of being created by someone with limited post processing skill rather than that he believed that to actually be the case.

It's always interesting to me that the critiques prior to a photo's selection as the POW can be overwhelmingly positive, many by accomplished photographers, and then after POW, they go sour. Why so sour? There is nothing wrong with this photograph. I think the colors are saturated because it's about one stop underexposed, and unlike many "moving water" photos, this one was a shorter exposure that preserved some of the movement pattern in the water. I like that. The starfish give the appearance that they were placed strategically by hand, until you realize that they're everywhere. The starfish at lower left is underwater, which gives the impression of its being out of focus. This must be some kind of New Zealand starfish convention. It's not my favorite photo by Kah Kit Yoong, but it's still good.

What is the subject? Where is something interesting? There is way too much going on for this image to be studied. My eye wants to go somewhere else. I am not a fan of fuzzy water no matter if a water fall, a river, or the ocean. There have been way too many over done time exposures of water.

i agree with Erik Adams. the whole picture appears fully natural to me. the pattern on water swirl is due to long exposure ( maybe it would look better with an even longer), it may appear to some oversaturated and underexposed because it was taken in twilight, and it doesnt supposed to be brightened up as daylight photos, but gives very interesting colors and mood IMO.
so, excellent light and composition, but indeed maybe too much: there is the near-far effect which works well, the swirl, which is too small to be dominant or important, maybe not right exposure time, and maybe even unnecessary. and there are the starfishes, which probably make the scenery more interesting, and they are very well arranged in composition. but all in all, aesthetically the less would be more.
very good and original photo IMO, but not my favorite from the author's portfolio.

Gordon,
"The soft focus on the starfish on the left is due to it being under moving water during a long exposure."
Agreed. But, doesn't it seem a number were added. It seems the ones at rear are too large for the diminishing perspective

Too bad: this image is from the corpus of a man with a generally spectacular portfolio; yet, I too find it fairly ho-hum. The sky is largely uninteresting, the sea stacks are too small in the frame to have weight, and I am at a loss as to whether the foam swirls or the starfish are the intended point of focus.

I wonder how this got chosen when there were so many other options in Kah Kit's portfolio.

Although this is far from the best--or even the most beautiful--photo in Kah Kit's portfolio, it is quite a remarkable capture if the swirl and the starfish have not been shopped in.

I prefer many of his others as well. He is quite a remarkable photographer.

--Lannie

Normally I'm a long winded poster but thanks to John A, I can keep my response short. I agree with everything he said. The image is

TOO balanced, cluttered, too pretty, and in my opinion, uninspired. It's a good start, but like John said, I can't help but wonder what else

you might have that might be better.

Here is a shot by Kah Kit which I believe shows his true genius:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4679535

--Lannie

What a lovely image and the photographer is to be congratulated on his technical and aesthetic execution of the scene. I would hope that if I encountered a scene like this that I would be able to capture it as well as Kah Kit Yoong. The standards here at PN are pretty high and it is easy to have a 'jaundiced eye' and opinion on the image when there are so many brilliant and beautiful ones.
I have heard some people say that they are tired of that silky water from the long exposures and yet we have both silky and well defined water striations. This combination of silky and striated water is an enigma for me. There is a part of me that says - you have observed a wonderful aspect of nature and rendered it very well in a two dimensional format. On the other hand I wonder if two images were taken with different shutter speeds and then the foreground water blended into the image. Even if blending was done, it is part of the "WoW" factor that many of us seek but do not often find.
In conclusion, I think it is a beautiful image and I offer my congratulations once again.

Just checked out Lannie's link and the first thing that came to my mind was: "I wish that car wasn't there!"
As a long time admirer of Kah Kit's (landscape) photography, I would also say that the chosen POW above is not one of his better images. But, as always, it might be safe to assume that the Elves just want to encourage a lively discussion.
After having a closer look at his New Photos folder, and staying with the current subject matter, I will say that this one appeals to me a lot more, than the image above. Simply a matter of personal taste, of course...
I don't think that Kah Kit relies heavily on Photoshop to decide on the final composition of his images. Going by the equipment listing, it appears that he attempts to capture everything in-camera.
If this shot had been mine, I would have removed the out-of-focus starfish at bottom left. In fact, under the existing light conditions at the time, it would be interesting to ask of Kah Kit, if he actually took much notice of that particular starfish, in the corner of his viewfinder.
Whilst trying to improve the capture above, I have arrived at the following crop.

I usually hate making crop-suggestions, but I am compelled to say that I quite like Peter's crop. It solves many of the issues I have with the image and it has a more pleasing flow for my eye to follow.

Erik Adams makes an interesting comment, and I've observed it too: a photo receives high praise in the general review, but as a POW the comments are quite critical and unsupportive. Do we have two different audiences providing the comments, or do the standards change?

I honestly feel sorry for someone who would call this collection of natural phenomena "pedantic." It's relatively rare to find so many multi-rayed starfish clinging to the rocks at low tide at the end (or beginning?) of the day, and I think the off-shore sea stacks add a perfect background. It's the combination of organic and inorganic that really make the photo for me. The "near-far" and movement of the water complete this environmental portrait of the near-shore ecosystem, and it's done in an aesthetically pleasing way. I wouldn't want to change anything in this photo. I can live with a starfish that is not sharply defined as a result of being under water because, well, that happens. It's a wonderful landscape, one that we have an opportunity to experience for such a short time (tidal cycles or life cycles, take your pick).

Firstly, I would like to thank the elves for selecting “Starfish Swirl” as POW. I see that many people have stated that there other images in my portfolio more worthy for this honour. While it is not one of my own personal favourites, I think it was a good choice for discussion and I’m very happy that this recent work was selected, instead of some of my other landscape or travel images.

Secondly, I’m very appreciative of the time, thought and effort people have put into their honest feedback on this image. As a contributor and moderator on several specialist nature photography forums, I’m finding it quite interesting to read the opinions of photographers outside the field.

Before responding to some of the remarks and queries, a few words about where I am at with my photography. I’ve been photographing for just over five years now. I consider myself a travel photographer with a special interest in nature and landscapes. I come from a part of the world where seascapes are very accessible and hence popular. Over the past year or two, my work in this area has become much more selective because I was getting bored with the dime-a-dozen rock-water-sunset/sunrise images. Nowadays, I only present work in this genre that in my opinion stands out from this combination in some way. “Starfish Swirl” is representative to this new approach and was captured little over a month ago.

I should also mention that I have a rather traditional method to my work. My preference is to use a single exposure and only neutral coloured filters whenever possible (roughly 99% of the time). All of this applies to “Starfish Swirl”. The swirl was created in-camera and none of the starfish were “Photoshopped” in. I find working within these limitations to be rewarding enough alone but find nothing wrong with techniques that involve multiple exposures and HDR.

Some notes from the field. This shot was not at all the image I had in mind at all on the day. I could tell that the sunrise was likely to be bland, so decided to work on a composition that relied more on foreground elements than sky. The number of starfish you see here does not really convey how chaotic and large the colony really was. After taking the time to closely observe the distribution of stars, rocks and water, I arrived at a composition that I was rather pleased with. I find it interesting that someone has commented that the result is too pretty and too balanced. That is precisely what I seek in nature photography - finding beauty and order among the chaos. The latter is easy to find in the natural world, the challenge is to ‘see’ the harmony within - which leads me to how the composition was constructed. What attracted me to this scene was the inverted S shape arrangement of starfish, leading the eye from right midground, right bottom, left bottom, up and towards the rock stacks. The cliffs on the left served to bounce the eye back onto the stack. Peter’s crop also works quite well, even without the starfish in the left corner as it utilizes part of the swirl to lead the eye back up. I felt uncomfortable with the big featureless pool in the foreground, so I experimented and managed to capture the well-formed swirl on only one occasion. I don’t quite understand the drive present a single subject. To me the arrangement of the brightly coloured starfish are unequivocally the star of the show. The swirl merely echoes the circle of the stars. My intention was for the swirl to complement the stars rather than compete with them. Of course whether it is successful is a matter for the beholder. One unintended feature of the swirl is that it seems to be spinning in the opposite direction to where the stars seem to be going, which may add a more dynamic element here. The last element that drew me to this seascape, noted by Jim was the rock formations on the left which mirror the arms of the starfish. While I was initially disappointed by the lack of character in the sky, in hindsight the last thing this image needs is a bombastic sunrise to add to a complex composition.

The explanation for the blurred starfish at the lower left corner made my several members is correct - fast flowing turbulent water. I could have blended a clear star from another exposure where there was less water but that’s not my style. There are a couple of technical issues that I wish to address when I rework this image for print and web. The oversharpening artifacts around the stack have been pointed out. Also, some over-zealous contrast adjustment has resulted in over-saturation of the distant starfish and excessive darkening of the rocks in that area.

Regarding the comments about shutter speed and the treatment of water. For a seascape, 5 seconds is not what I would regard as a long exposure. In any case, shutter speed was entirely dictated by what was required to achieve the swirl. I find comments expressing general dislike or like for a particular water treatment to be unhelpful (similar to stating that they like trees as a subject but not flowers) . It’s something I discourage when I teach seascape photography; we should be open to all sorts of shutter speeds and choose the one that best sets the mood of the image. What is much more useful, is the discussion of how the treatment of water impacts the photo, positive or negative and why. I would apply the same thing to near-far or whatever style of composition is used. Does the composition achieve the goal.

Finally, given my desire to produce seascapes that go beyond the typical rock-water-sky, why have I uploaded this image to photo.net and my website? I’ve seen and critiqued probably thousands of seascapes - I have not come across anything similar to this shot. To say that finding this sort of arrangement of starfish and elements is a one-in-a-lifetime event is stretching things. It was simply a fortuitous opportunity to photograph marine life in its environment in a harmonious way.

Well, thanks Kah Kit, since I so rarely find an urge to post on PN--too little time, too many photos to take! Anyhow, I hadn't seen this on NPN, so its fresh for me. Personally, I think it's a fantastic shot, certainly a worthy addition to your portfolio. My sole criticism is that the water looks a bit radioactive to me--partly due to the exposure but also processing choices--I would have preferred a more subdued water color to let the subject matter here speak for itself, the cool swirl and the even cooler arrangement of starfish. I'm at a loss to explain some of the other criticisms, for example the idea that the one starfish is OOF is just plain wrong--it's clearly underwater, and for me at least, it adds to the mystery of the scene. As you probably know, I'm not a big fan of long ocean exposures, I generally despise them. And I disagree with your tree vs flower analogy, IMO a long ocean exposure generally is destructive, not simply because it's an overused technique, but because it destroys the character of the sea--which generally is one of dynamics and power--not smoothed out blandness. Long ocean exposures turn water into smoke--and I prefer it to be water, which is more natural, and this is "nature" photography after all. However, in this shot the "long" exposure doesnt bother me because: 1) it's not that long 2) the length is necessary for the swirl and 3) there's not much dynamics in the surf to be "ruined" by a lengthy exposure. It works for me--this is quite a unique shot, and well presented.

Kah Kit.... mate, fantastic to see your work showcased in public (again). It was a welcome surprise to open up PhotoNet to see your photo on the front page.

And, thank you for the considered and substantial response too. It made for an interesting and thought provoking read.

Look, as you know I have just about zero experience with landscape photography... so, take what I say with a grain of salt. But, when I first saw the photo, the first thing that screamed out at me was how centred that swirl was in the frame. It just destroyed the overall compositional balance for me. I find Peter's suggested crop more balanced. But, I am an unbalanced kinda guy when it comes to my own portraiture photography. ;)

Apart from that, I really like the capture... makes me wish I was right there to experience the scene in person. Those starfish are awesome...

One question: why the vertical format and not horizontal? I'm curious....

Take care,
em :)

ps.... 'photoshopped in'.... ha! I found that highly amusing knowing how you like to get things right in camera. ;)

Hi Em. I rather like Peter's crop as well - it certainly works. Whether I prefer to the original or not, I'm not sure at this stage. I had meant to address the landscape versus vertical issue above but it slipped my mind. I tend to see landscapes in terms of horizontal framing so when you see a portrait format, there's usually a very good reason for that. Basically that was a lot of junk on both sides of what you see here. In addition, I wanted the eye to follow the starfish trail upwards. Having said that, I have both versions. Although I shoot primarily for myself, I'm always conscious of the need to produce images that will end up in printl; this means portrait and landscape orientations of all significant shots. The landscape version of this will not make it to photo.net or my website but it will likely become part of my stock library.

Tony, the WoW factor can be a problem. It wears off quickly. The first pages of the TRP are filled with WoW photos and most of them bore me to tears. You're right, a jaundiced eye has seen very many of them . . . and may be looking for something else. Soda pop has a Wow factor. Gets you high and then promptly lets you down. A fine wine often comes on much more slowly and subtly.

Beautiful image, Kah. The starfish, swirling water, soft illumination, background sea stacks and perfect composition of these elements all work together to create a wonderful scene. I agree with some of the other comments that this is "too perfect", but I see that as a good attribute here :) As far as originality goes, there are other starfish images out there, but there are very few that have the starfish incorporated into a scene as dramatic as this one. Well done.
BTW, the rest of your portfolio is really outstanding.

I do no understand why so many people have the need to reference multiple frame compositing, cloning and other post production trickery to explain this image. The swirls are the result of water motion period -- end of story. GEEZ why is that so hard to get over?