Starfish Swirl

This post is in response to Kani to illustrate that now two posts have been made that have nothing to do with the photo; Fred's and my own. Half the long comments really have nothing to do with the photo, but rather various differing philosophies on, and varying opinions of, landscape/nature/sunset photography. I don't think the elves pick photo's that they think are great or beautiful but rather controversial. This image was controversial, but not really because of the photo itself, but rather what it is supposed to, or expected to, represent.

David,
If so (and I tend to think you are right in how the choice was made), they do excellent work. I've read through this discussion with great interest. Not because of the photo, but because of the insight and ideas shared on photography. This discussion has more thoughts in it that can help me (and I think others) grow in photography than a single photo can.
(and that makes 3 posts...)

One time I look at the photo, I like it, the other not... Overall, like many commented before, it strikes me as being somewhat artificial; reading that it is not, does not seem to make a difference. Technically it looks executed very well, and from the comments I understand this photo is how the photographer wants it to be. So, in that sense,mission accomplished. One cannot please all.

Let me propose a small test for those purists out there. Try critically looking as a color test page separately with each eye. I'll bet many, if not all of you will notice some difference in color perception from one eye to the other. The same is true from one person to another. I have no idea what an "unmanipulated" photo is. No digital capture of film "sees" the image the way you did in person. Back when I was a working commercial photographer I would choose which film I would use to suit a particular art director's "view" of color. Some insisted on Kodachrome, others on Ektachrome Pro, others liked Agfacolor, or Agfachrome. No two captured images the same way. The same is true of digital captures. There is no exact copy of the scene captured by a camera. Personally I find the camera (and the physical or digital darkroom) just a means to an end of trying to produce an image that is as close to the one I had in my mind before I tripped the shutter. I do it knowing full well that no two viewers of the image will ever see it exactly the way I did. I find the purist argument about the unadulterated image to be fatuous and not very realistic. It may be an interesting philosophical discussion, but the reality is that there is no such animal outside of wonderland.

Be Honest, just looking at your history of shots, colors, tones swirls and the like are all the same in various degrees, different photo's, and when you do Shop you don't ever answer, here you denie and the obvious is clear. this to me is a disgrace to the whole photonet community and why many leave.

Tired of the same ole same ole. Your good, why not be honest with what your doing?

And what exactly are you implying that I'm not honest with Taylor? Perhaps if you were more clear with your comment, I might have a clue what you're talking about. On the other hand, it might be better to get someone else to write down your thoughts for you in good clear English.

At the first sight,the tones are very eye-catching and pleasant...I like the view point and composition too.
Good processing and strong shot.
Regards(Bobby).

In the all of fame, people use to said it doesn´t mind if they are talking about you in a good way or bad the most important is the fact that they are talking about you!
I think the photo is very good, so good it make reflect to others questioning its own photografy principles.

Not a 7/7 photo there are no 7/7 in this web
7/7 for me means
Superb subject (in a not controled situation)
Superb light
superb composition ( not just a great use of elements but also it must include a transcendental visual message)
perfect technique (no crop allowed)
Unique moment
and of course no manipulations!
i´m just talking about photography, i have a deep respect for digital art, but i consider digital art has an art in itself and can´t be compared with photography, the pick´s choice editors of this month are very good example of great digital art

I am very new to landscape photography, hence may not be in a position to comment this photo from a technical standpoint. However, I believe I have a general sense on what is a great landscape photograph and what is not quite. More importantly, back to early of this year, I had a chance to take photos with Kah Kit for 4 days, I probably know more about Kah Kit's photography methods in the field than many of others here. So I like to express my opinions about this photo and Kah Kit's photography method.
Firstly, this photo can catch my eyes immediately. Obviously starfish all over the place makes this photo very special. I have seen some photos with starfish but not like this one. This must be a very special situation or location that many of us do not a chance to see. Secondly, the swirl makes this picture quite dramatic, from this swirl we can see the water movement from near to far. In my opinion, this is a great picture that we do not see so often.
In this discussion, I saw some people asked questions about Kah Kit's PP in relation to this photo. Since I spent 4 days with Kah Kit early this year to take landscape photos, I knew that Kah Kit never used color filters, never created anything that he didn't capture in the field into his photo through PP. All of his photos came from his hard work and dedication to capture the true beauty of the nature. I respect his attitude to landscape photography.

I agree completely with Paolo de Faveri's comment. What is all this discussion over compositionally and technically almost perfect image about? If this image got its high ratings is because it deserve them. However, I'm sure some people who are so disgusted so much with this shot still can teach us something - how to get 7/7 ratings on boring captures, that should be really interesting to know! Kah Kit Yoong, my congratulations, this is outstanding capture.

Interesting all the random dribble. If you don't like Landscapes, why do you even look at them? Let alone make a miserable essay trying to explain to the world why landscapes are so bland. The most severe critiques have pretty boring/mediocre portfolios as far as i'm concerned, and if landscapes/sescapes are poor, then random houses in the middle of nowhere do little for me, either. Everyone is DIFFERENT, that's what makes photography so great, there are so many different types of photography that can capture ones imagination. I happen to love nature photography, as do millions of others.

Can't see how this is a run of the mill seascape, couldn't care less if the "angle" isn't unique. it's quite staggering to see so many starfish in the one location, been to hundreds of beaches and never seen anything like that. I didn't mind the cropping suggestion but can see why he didn't in the end. The starfish actually were the first thing that caught my eye, not the swirl. Certainly not my favourite Kah Kit Yoong image, but it's an interesting one nonetheless.

It is probably futile for me to add my to cents, but I have to say, I find most comments here absolutely pathetic.
I cannot begin to understand how this is not a fantastic image.
For me photography is all about conveying effectively the beauty of nature - to argue about whether starfish X could be 3 degrees more to the left is just ridiculous. If I were to look at nature with the "eye of perfection" that many of you claim to have, I probably would just stay at home. Or, better yet, next time I will go over to that moose and tell him to move 2.46753 degrees to the left since its current position is not sufficiently pleasing to me.
Get a life!

Aha! Wildlife photographer of the year 2011!