Lonely lighthouse

I like the tone and the perspective.

A rough hewn trail leading to the lighthouse's base, well captured with leading lines. Dramatic contrast and well controlled lighting.

I like the perspective and framing. Overall, though, it feels like a bit of a mess. The blacks are unsightly throughout. I don't mind the dark, foreboding look but this isn't that, to my eye. It's way over-the-top. I don't appreciate that the sky is toned brown and most of the landscape is toned blue, then the very foreground goes back to brown again. The person standing on the right of the trail gets completely lost and should either not be there or somehow incorporated into the story. As is he (they?) are camouflaged. There might be a second person who's mostly hidden in front of him. The photo is cut vertically almost completely in half by the lighthouse which feels awkward. Here, the path is important and makes a great leading line, so I would have cut back on the height of the sky so things were not so centered.

An interesting approach clearly not to everyone's taste. It is eye catching and that is enough to merit it's posting if you are happy with it that's all that matters. But this is the Critique forum so you can expect some to query the options taken. I like the selective toning as an effect but Sam's thoughts are just as valid. Congrats for the photo of the week accolade, in times past it was an invitation for photos to be heavily dissected but there is not the interaction anymore ..............BR..............GC.

"in times past it was an invitation for photos to be heavily dissected but there is not the interaction anymore" It's up to each of us to critique in-depth. It's not so much about lack of interaction like the past. It's what each of us says and does in the present that matters. "if you are happy with it that's all that matters." I don't agree. Learning from critiques, I've discovered for myself, is rarely about my own happiness. It's often about being a little unhappy for a while until I get to the point of accepting a criticism and working through to improvement. My "happiness" with my own photos, especially when I was newer at it but even still today, can be used as a defense from really hearing critique and from improving my photos. My own improvement often comes from a place of dissatisfaction. Too much happiness with my work, especially as a response to critique, can really be a deterrent to growth.

Sam you seem to have seen more in my comments than I intended. Please note "Sam's thoughts are just as valid" I will assume you don't think your thoughts are more valid. My reference to times past were a comment on the fact that there is not the amount of interaction on PN there once was, and nothing more....BR....GC.

Gerald, I disagreed with your comment that “if you are happy with it that’s all that matters” for the reasons I stated. I welcome disagreement, especially in a critique group. There can be two competing opinions of a photo and people, including the critics themselves, are certainly entitled to think one more valid than the other (that seems quite natural and ok to me) ... or they may think two differing opinions are each valid or may simply prefer one to the other, without getting into validity. I thought of your comment about the photographer’s happiness as more of a cliché than anything. I hear it said a lot but I think, as I said, it’s defensive rather than constructive . It’s a message of protectiveness in the face of criticism. It’s different from our disagreement on the aesthetics of the photo itself. It’s about how we take in critique, not this photo. To me, as I said, how I take critique can play a big role in the growth of my photography.

OK Sam, I will explain what I meant by " If you are happy with it that's all that matters" people have to have the final opinion on their output . Advice should be taken on board and taken into consideration but not followed without question. I am giving the OP the credit that he gave the the choices he made some thought, he can take in the opinions expressed but in the end it should be his vision that prevails. We are now just disagreeing on words used which is silly...........Finally.......BR............GC.

The post processing is sloppy and unsightly. Horrible toning aside, the sky is a train wreck of digital artifacts. The burning in of the sky was done without masking the top of the posts or the trees. As a result, the posts are unnaturally blackened along with the trees and stand out as obviously manipulated. I agree that the figure gets lost in the murky tones on the path. The composition is fine, if not particularly striking and could have made an okay photo, if not for the post production.

Honestly, I have no idea why the brown toning. I don't think it too sharp and the lighthouse is the subject, but small in the frame. Of course its possible I'm missing some meaning in the photo

Complimenti !