Critique for Nightsky Shot

Hey guys,

already posted this in the Astronomy forum but i think i might get better advice here.

Does this look like quality work to you? I spent hours on PP and cant see it anymore, but i like the shot really and would like to print it. What do you think?

16-35Lii, 30s, f/2.8, ISO 100 and heavy PP:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

It's a cool concept; could be a wall-hanger. The one problem that I have with it is the blown out section on the left side. It draws the eye and ruins the mood of the piece as a whole.

To me it has a post processed look. Don't know quite how else to describe it except to say that having done a zillion or so photos myself, I recognize it now in other people's photos where a person tried to get something that wasn't there in a photo. Probably from pushing the contrast a brightness up a little too much, to the point where the photo doesn't look natural anymore. Mostly in the left half of the photo, where the boat doesn't look quite right.

Looked again to try to put my finger on it, maybe this - look at the grass in the lower right, where it's fairly well lit, and then look at how dark the shadows are in front of it. I think you would expect to see more detail in those shadows given the amount of light on the grass. You could find a similar large variation in brightness on the boat, the bridge versus the dark area under the boat. So I'm thinking you need to throttle back on what you did with the contrast and probably brightness.

Youre right, and not the first one who mentions this

After looking at it again, i felt it was way overdone, and recognized that the purple thing is flare ad not the milky way :P

Another take:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

patrick j wrote in post #17163837
To me it has a post processed look. Don't know quite how else to describe it except to say that having done a zillion or so photos myself, I recognize it now in other people's photos where a person tried to get something that wasn't there in a photo. Probably from pushing the contrast a brightness up a little too much, to the point where the photo doesn't look natural anymore. Mostly in the left half of the photo, where the boat doesn't look quite right.

Looked again to try to put my finger on it, maybe this - look at the grass in the lower right, where it's fairly well lit, and then look at how dark the shadows are in front of it. I think you would expect to see more detail in those shadows given the amount of light on the grass. You could find a similar large variation in brightness on the boat, the bridge versus the dark area under the boat. So I'm thinking you need to throttle back on what you did with the contrast and probably brightness.

Well it was late yesterday, i know what you mean..
When i look at it after my 2nd try it simply looks cheap made
Have done something new from scratch, what do you think now?

Looks much better. Unfortunately you lose some of that starry sky, that's probably what you were trying to bring out. I don't know if there is a way to combine the newer foreground with the sky from the first photo. (I know about blending, but don't know if it would work for this one where there's no clear dividing line between two parts of the photo)

patrick j wrote in post #17164046
Looks much better. Unfortunately you lose some of that starry sky, that's probably what you were trying to bring out. I don't know if there is a way to combine the newer foreground with the sky from the first photo. (I know about blending, but don't know if it would work for this one where there's no clear dividing line between two parts of the photo)

Honestly if i look at my first picture, i feel like i dont need such a fancy sky. Ive already brought out a lot more than i expected.

In the first picture i also noticed that a too starry sky is drawing the eyes to, which is not the intention since the boat is actually the subject...