geezee Loc: Pensacola, FL

C&C

Original Shot


Edited

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Lose the edit and bump up the saturation in the original a little and you'll have a nice shot.

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

Yep :)

rballard29 Loc: Albuquerque, NM

Follow the advice above. The edited version doesn't do anything to improve on the original.

AK Dreamer Loc: Alaska & Nevada

I agree with all of the above. PP is way over done here and proves more is not necessarily better. Curves...contrast...saturation, all done minimally would have enhanced the original photo.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Agree as well.

glenn Loc: oregon

2nd one just doesn't do anything for me

ArchieV Loc: Winter Park, Florida

Your editing has moved the subject from a snapshot to a very interesting artistic expression. Congratulations. The degree of edit couldn't be more perfect. You have created an ethereal scene which moves the imagination to the beginning of a story or a fond memory back in time. Your crop has concentrated the important aspects of the scene which draws attention to the center creating a sense of motion. One wants to follow the track into the landscape and see more...as opposed to flying off into the sky. Your artistic expression elevated the ordinary to the extraordinary. Keep up the great work!

iresq Loc: Annapolis MD

I'm kinda digging the edit. The tighter crop showing the elevation changes is cool too.

geezee Loc: Pensacola, FL

Thank you for recognizing where I was going with this photo-The original is a very plain shot and color alone would not do much to improve it. I've included another edit which kicks it up a little!

A Little more color

flyguy Loc: Las Cruces, New Mexico

I tend to agree with this assessment of your work.

Have you tried converting it to a black and white in the process?

I feel that with the contrasts, the nice blacks, and little color in the original, a black and white might work well.

rayford2 Loc: New Bethlehem, PA

Sorry, the first one is OK. The other two aren't, but that's just one man's opinion.
The first 5 posters had the right idea for improvement.

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

Ah, dear enthusiasts, shall we recognize that we bring to what we see, eyes leaning? Aren't they blown upon by winds directed by personal habits in visualization? Is it imperative that all eyes must lean together?

We might help by indicating in which way we wish a picture to be viewed, through eyes of strict photographic rendition or something less stringent, something of whimsy or fantasy, if that be the case. Perhaps we would do well to let folks know our photographic goal in asking for opinion. If we want an evaluation in terms of creative visualization rendered upon a raw photo then we would not be disappointed in having other standards applied, and if they are anyway, then it is not any of our responsibility.

I see this dichotomy reaching across a number of posted topics. It is a simple matter of difficulty in communicating what the photographer was intending. It is not enough to lay a picture on the crowd. When we take a picture we have brought to it something of ourselves; it has a harmony with our feelings that we wish to preserve. When we take the picture to be rendered in presentable form we not only bring to it our original impressions, but also see it afresh and it becomes a new being with us. We may at that point attempt our best to recover and present it as expressing our first response.

We want it to bring to eye as accurately what we saw then. Or we may find that our relationship has changed and work to render other impressions derived from what we see.

The way of it is, that a photograph is not a duplicate of the original scene or object. It is already at best an excellent representation of that, not a duplication. Its geometry is plain; it colors are dyes or derived from electronic excitations. Its perspectives that of the camera, not the photographer's eye. Even with that being the case, there is no criticism to a person having a goal of taking this shadow cast from another reality, and keeping it as true to its inherent qualities as possible until it finds a final presentation form regardless of all the hoops it is sent through on the way.

At the same time in recognition that the human element was present even before the shutter was released and at the time of release has made choices and selections that are deliberately selective of the image being made upon the camera's sensor medium, a person may continue that very human propensity of putting on that recording his own imprint at every step of the way to a finished product. That is also a worthy intention.

So, I have no choice but to take photographs first as they hit me sending impression into my mind for its reflections and responses according to my own habits of visualization. But, then following that, it is a wonderful thing to see it through the eyes of their generators as they express themselves and their intentions through and about it. We can then speak together about its elements and how they support or could better support particular intents.

When a response is far removed from any empathetic reaction to a photograph, then we might be content with simply saying, we are sorry; we don't get it. That admission says as much about ourselves, as it does the work at hand. It is not necessarily any great reflection on either case, just an honest admission. Thank you for considering.

ArchieV Loc: Winter Park, Florida

The nature of art has been described as "one of the most elusive of the traditional problems of human culture".

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

Ah, found my way back after all. The convolutions of this forum provide more than one way to get lost, then found again. Oh, the perils for the inexperienced!

I am contribuiting here two takes on the posted photo. It represents my feeling that every photo file or negative is potentially a root for many pictures.