Hi Bushido. I would suggest making your image downloadable and posting the metadata. What bothers me is that the image is not sharp. This could the thumbnail or it could be the image itself. The metadata might help but it will not tell us if you used a tripod.

Some other concerns. I find those posts distracting. Not sure why. The dock itself is pointing into the lake but the perpendicular posts stop that and shove the eyes upward. You may have to be open to removing them in post-processing.

This brings me to the other end of the dock. It seems to come of from nowhere. Might the picture be better with a foreground? Worth trying.

Next, the sky. Skies are very important to me. I prefer more highlights and tonal range. That is, the sky is too dark for me. Also, the color seems off to me. I prefer more red or warmth in the sunset. Perhaps, you took this picture too late after the sunset.

Finally, the reflection of the clouds in the water. What happened to the originals in the sky? I would consider a composition with them in it.

My two cents.

Or a Karsh portrait. Black and white at its best. So much better than the gospel singer.

I agree with you on tastes. As for monochrome, I am so enamored with color because we could not get good color until the 80's that I have no interest in going back to my black and white roots. However, I have seen some great monochrome being done today. Your woodworker is an example.

To complete the discussion, here is my previous reference.

Margaret Bourke-White

Graham, I agree with you on the monitors. In fact, exporting from LR to job often requires more tweaking to get the jpg right. Frustrating. However, I suspect that this shot is just too dark for my taste.

I thought you were too sophisticated and experienced not to shoot raw. With the list of places to shoot, you are an amateur in the original intent of the word. Good for you and thanks for sharing.

What is SFX?

I am sorry but I do not know what this picture is about. Having grown up when we had to put up with grainy, constrasty images, I still do not find them pleasing. I do not know what the intent was here but the retro fad, uninformed technique or simply wanting to be different do not justify the quality of this print.

I have to agree with Mogul. Way too dark and contrasty. Compare this to the lovely tones in the woodworker Graham posted recently. I disagree with Nightski. The woodworker was far better technically and artistically. It reminds me of Yosef Karsh.

The picture reminds me of the South African miner shot by the wonder Margaret Bourke-White. Except this lacks the subtlety.

Graham, do you shoot raw? How do you convert to monochrome? This may shed light on the result.

If viscountdriver means depth of field, I agree with him. The shallow DOF is very amateurish. I think macro shots with everything in focus can be stunning.

The other thing about this photo is that as it stands by itself, it simply is not interesting. It is just a kid's toy. I do not want a back story explaining why a picture should be interesting unless it is about history or journalism.

Jim D, if you think about it, you have been a member of their cloud club for a long time. Not just Adobe, but also Microsoft, Apple and many other software vendors. When did you last install software or upgrades from a disk?

The big difference now is that you pay monthly forever rather than only once. And they probably cut down on piracy.

For fear of waxing poetic, I quibble with your title. It brings to mind Robert Frost's poem "The Road Not Taken". Here is how the poem ends.

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."

Here is my quibble: no such choice in the picture.

In the days of traditional photography, the normal viewing distance was the diagonal of the print. People intuitively adjust it because we fit the print into the same viewing angle of the eye. Consequently, the sharpness and size of the print wind up being the same.

After about two hours of screwing around, I got it all fixed.

Actually, you never own software. You merely license it, usually indefinitely. Adobe just changed their rules and went from forever to a month at a time.

Thanks for responding. Case closed.

I bought the monthly subscription for LR and PS. How do I get the registration numbers for the software?

Thanks.

Two bits of terrible advice. You just cannot grab anything "white" because it is probably not a real white and is certainly not calibrated. Secondly, shooting in RAW and fixing later depends upon what you mean by fix. Do you want to replicate the white balance of the original scene and create a white balance for the sake of your artistic interpretation of the original? The first is objective and the second is subjective. If you want objective, you need a proper aid such as an Expodisc or color temperature meter.

I have used Expodisc for years. It gives very true colors without guessing and in no time. I do not know how anyone who considers himself or herself a serious photographer could not use an Expodisc or color temperature meter.

PS Forget those color temperature tables and camera color temperature pre-sets.

Thank you for the compliment. More experience than skill or talent. I have been printing since 1959 and had an outstanding mentor. The learning process starts with looking at many photos, developing your own likes and dislikes, a/k/a style or vision, and then acquiring the tools and techniques for realizing your vision. I am sure you can do it too. You just have to know where you are going with a picture.

You do not necessarily need fancy or expensive software. What do you have?

The problem appeared in the origin edit and the poster edited the edit. Check out the first one. Otherwise, I would not have noticed the second one. I do not mind cloning: just do not get caught!