Sweetness-&-Light- (Click for larger view)

LEN

Sincere Thanks for your thoughts and kind words. Peer recognition is more than good enough for me : - )

All The Best mate!

Alf

GERRY
I have to admit that before I looked at the crop that "Endof Days" submitted I would have been in complete agreement with your comments and furthermore with the benefit of being there and taking the shot, I wouldn't have dream't of cropping it to this extent. But, that was before and I viewed the cropped version and despite myself I have started liking it very much! That,s not to say I like the original any less, but this "unthinkable" alternative certainly has given me something to think about!
Sincere Thanks Gerry for your thoughtful evaluation.

ENDOF DAYS
I don't agree with your analysis that the submerged bush and dark corner of sky add anything, on the contrary they seem to add balance to the image and depth to me. But I do have to say that your "unthinkable" act has paid off, the cropped version is very attractive and despite the now central composition it doesn't detract from the overall appeal in any way. Thank You!

FRED
I have to agree, and although I wouldn't have been so bold to have cropped it myself, I can see I need to open my mind a bit more when it comes to these decisions. I usually have an aversion to square formatted landscapes and centrally composed ones too, but this has really opened my eyes and just left me wondering why I didn't see it like this in the first place. That being said I still like the original and it remains a personal favourite. Thank You for your thoughts and comments.

LEN

Sincere Thanks for your thoughts and kind words. Peer recognition is more than good enough for me : - )

All The Best mate!

Alf

GERRY
I have to admit that before I looked at the crop that "Endof Days" submitted I would have been in complete agreement with your comments and furthermore with the benefit of being there and taking the shot, I wouldn't have dream't of cropping it to this extent. But, that was before and I viewed the cropped version and despite myself I have started liking it very much! That,s not to say I like the original any less, but this "unthinkable" alternative certainly has given me something to think about!
Sincere Thanks Gerry for your thoughtful evaluation.

ENDOF DAYS
I don't agree with your analysis that the submerged bush and dark corner of sky add anything, on the contrary they seem to add balance to the image and depth to me. But I do have to say that your "unthinkable" act has paid off, the cropped version is very attractive and despite the now central composition it doesn't detract from the overall appeal in any way. Thank You!

FRED
I have to agree, and although I wouldn't have been so bold to have cropped it myself, I can see I need to open my mind a bit more when it comes to these decisions. I usually have an aversion to square formatted landscapes and centrally composed ones too, but this has really opened my eyes and just left me wondering why I didn't see it like this in the first place. That being said I still like the original and it remains a personal favourite. Thank You for your thoughts and comments.

Given the relatively low contrast and the muted colors, I would like to see this in b&w. With the contrast punched up I think it might develop a sumi-e character that could be very pleasing. I like the composition, but the details are somewhat lost due to the low contrast.

DAVID
Many Thanks for your thoughts and considerations. I would never have seriously considered this as a B & W contender, but after reading your suggestions I have given it a try. The contrast has been increased as per your suggestion, I don't think it's any better than the original, but it's certainly different. I also tried a B & W version without the contrast being increased and I have to say that the one with the lower contrast seems to retain the presence and atmosphere of the mist to a greater degree.

DAVID
Many Thanks for your thoughts and considerations. I would never have seriously considered this as a B & W contender, but after reading your suggestions I have given it a try. The contrast has been increased as per your suggestion, I don't think it's any better than the original, but it's certainly different. I also tried a B & W version without the contrast being increased and I have to say that the one with the lower contrast seems to retain the presence and atmosphere of the mist to a greater degree.

Here is another B & W version with less contrast

Congrats and I like the original.

TONY & GERRY
Many Thanks!
I have to agree that for me the original has the most appeal. I quite like the less contrasty B & W one though!

I take it all back. I'll go with Alf's original, with BW#2 as a close 2nd. I don't care for End of Days' crop. It loses Alf's very intentional compositional (is that a word?) balance. Alf, what happens if you take the clarity down a bit on the high contrast BW? Just curious...

DAVID
Many Thanks for your response. I suspect that if I was to take down the clarity on the high contrast B & W it would appear somewhere in between the 2 B & W. Interesting that you mention it though, as I did play with the clarity slider in lightroom when processing the original, but eventually opted to leave it alone.

Some very good transfers to B&W. Sometimes a color shot turns out later to be good or better in B&W although I tend to make better B&W photos by first thinking in B&W at the capture stage (something my life's partner accuses me of doing quite often) as the approach to subject matter, tone (how colors transfer to B&W (and whether I wish to filter or not at that stage), light, texture, contrast and composition are often different from those factors in a color image.

My view is that the cropping to a narrower format removes the compositional success of the original formatting, as seen by Alf, so dark areas or not, I think the original is more attractive.

Alf, I fully understand and respect your desire to not alter the image other than sharpening and balancing of light. That same outlook inspired me before I decided that photography to me is as much a tool to craft an image as a device to two dimensionally capture what we see. That crafting may or may not approach reality of the capture moment but hopefully expresses something I saw or felt in perceiving the subject. That is nonetheless limited by my subjective approach that is to alter some images such as removal of dark areas (I lighten them in my print darkroom for B&W work based on film capture) or darkening of light areas that I feel do not add or subtract from that perception or feeling.

Cloning out a small detracting secondary subject is also I think useful at times (although I strongly resist chopping out a bush or other vegetable matter in that sense). On the other hand I have a clear dislike for Photoshop chromatically over-intensified images, especially of nature subjects and scenics.

When I saw your photo I thought of the approach of Micheal Kenna, whose minimalist scenics and apparent oriental influence I often like, an approach I attempt to infuse to some degree in my own work. Such thinking was in part behind my thought that your image might gain something by lightening or cloning out the dark areas to simplify the information provided by the scene, that I think very well chosen and captured.

ARTHUR
Many Thanks for your further observations and explanatory notes, they really are much appreciated. I wasn't quite sure just to what degree your first suggestions went regarding lightening and cropping. But after reading the above I would be quite comfortable with them. I am not at all a purist that won't change a thing when it comes to post processing, but I do try and keep to the original as much as possible.
I too don't see any harm in cloning out small detracting objects or lightening / darkening as you suggest. On this occasion and in retrospect I think I should have tried your suggestion first before I became a bit too defensive in my response (My Apologies) But I think it all stemmed from me actually being there and knowing how it should look (if that makes any sense) I suppose it is all about striking a balance that we are happy with in terms of post processing. But I can full appreciate your approach, and it does make a lot of sense.
After reading your further comments, I decided to go back to the original RAW file and have another go. This time I have lightened the darker area's and lightened the warm tones, whilst keeping the "thirds" format.

Alf, I think the amended version loses something. The gravel peninsula tapering-off into the water is very engaging, and pulls the eye from the lower-right foreground deeper into the image, for a more dynamic visual experience. The amended version is more static, and I feel less engaging. I played a little bit, and you could clone out the submerged bush, if it proves too distracting. I still like this image very much.

DAVID

I think you have a valid point. The grasses now seem to form a kind of barrier and to some I dare say that might create a visual barrier. Whilst the original version allows a visual way around the gravel peninsular. I also just noticed that this isn't exactly a crop of the original, it is in fact a very similar image taken during the same session but from a slightly different angle. The position of the reflections gives it away. Many Thanks David!

wishing you and yours a New Year filled with sweetness and light, dear Alf ;-} dp

Lovely composure, simplicity and mood.