Overlooking

[maddogmurph]

Why doesn't this work? Color theory off? Focus? Is the blown out area too crunchy with the stamping? I just can't bring myself to like this photo.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

It is a bit oversaturated, especially the reds, and too busy compositionally. An interesting area and viewpoint, but the overall result appears too saccharine. I am the least worried about the blown out highlights.

[maddogmurph]

It is a bit oversaturated, especially the reds, and too busy compositionally. An interesting area and viewpoint, but the overall result appears too saccharine. I am the least worried about the blown out highlights.

Yeah I'm tossing it. I have a million better shots.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

It is a bit oversaturated, especially the reds, and too busy compositionally. An interesting area and viewpoint, but the overall result appears too saccharine. I am the least worried about the blown out highlights.

I agree. The colors bother me, but the blown highlights do not.

[rabanito]

I think it is an error to use a well known, beautiful mountain, distort it and oversaturate the surroundings.
Whether this or the Half Dome or else.

I am only a lowly amateur with an opinion but I cannot befriend  this picture.
No offence meant.

[Peter McLennan]

Agreed. I've seen better from you, 'murph.

I find it a little annoying that both of the highest peaks are (barely) occluded by cloud.  Rob C might disagree, stating that those are standard glamour photography tricks.

Still, a pretty nice shot from a familiar location.  Oversaturated, yes.  But so are many landscape images these days.

[rabanito]

I find it a little annoying that both of the highest peaks are (barely) occluded by cloud. 

Chaltén comes from a Tehuelche word meaning "smoking mountain", due to a cloud that usually forms around the mountain's peak. (Wikipedia)

[Telecaster]

I think it would work with a clear deep blue sky and a bit less overall saturation. The busyness of the sky makes it the visual equivalent of listening to two songs at the same time. 

BTW, I really like it when folks post borderline photos and even outright rejects. IMO there's more to be gained from discussing why & how a photo doesn't work when its creator feels no obligation to defend it.

-Dave-

[Peter McLennan]

BTW, I really like it when folks post borderline photos and even outright rejects. IMO there's more to be gained from discussing why & how a photo doesn't work when its creator feels no obligation to defend it.

Absolutely!  We learn more from failures than we do from success.  Kudos to maddogmurph for being vulnerable. Sometimes it's very difficult to evaluate why an image makes us go "meh".

[rabanito]

I think it is a matter of knowing more or less the personal taste of the critic.
I like Mozart, I like Bach, I like Elvis, I like the Beatles etc...
If I go to a Hard Rock concert (or worse  ) I bring my ear protection and flee as soon as I can.
That doesn't mean that Hard Rock is wrong, just doesn't correspond to MY taste. Other people are enthusiastic.

If you ask for "user critiques" you are expected to expect them to be sincere.
And qualify the critique depending on who expresses it..
A difficult task, of course. We don't know each other very well here 

[32BT]

I think it is a matter of knowing more or less the personal taste of the critic.
I like Mozart, I like Bach, I like Elvis, I like the Beatles etc...
If I go to a Hard Rock concert (or worse  ) I bring my ear protection and flee as soon as I can.
That doesn't mean that Hard Rock is wrong, just doesn't correspond to MY taste. Other people are enthusiastic.

If you ask for "user critiques" you are expected to expect them to be sincere.
And qualify the critique depending on who expresses it..
A difficult task, of course. We don't know each other very well here 

No, not at all. Taste has nothing to do with it, unless the only critique your interested in is "likes" or "dislikes", and you additionally want to dismiss the dislikes because you think the critic is unqualified.

A good critic can distinguish good composition, arrangement, and quality of production, regardless of genre, precisely because it is separated from the appreciation of the genre itself. This is especially true in music, but certainly applicable in photography. Normally you'd want the art expression judged on qualities that otherwise have very little to do with genre definition or personal preference.

Whether you'll find this type of good critique on an internet forum is of course an entirely different matter... 

[Riaan van Wyk]

I get the feeling there is too much happening, little bit of everything and not enough of something to hang the composition together. Perhaps if the shot was from lower down to have the flowers more dominant in the frame might have helped. Or not.

 

[rabanito]

A good critic can distinguish good composition, arrangement, and quality of production, regardless of genre, precisely because it is separated from the appreciation of the genre itself.

I think that we're talking about critique coming from the users of this forum, among which there are people like me, who just don't look at a picture twice if they don't like it and from whom nobody has anything to learn, and on the other extreme people who not only know a lot but who have the patience and skill to explain and to teach.
This is what one can expect in a forum, IMHO. I have seen both types here and a lot in-between.

BTW I was not talking of "genre" but trying to give an example of how I react to beautiful and to horrible things, call them what you may.
In "music" you may personally also define what's music and what is noise.

About "likes" and the like (pun not intended), If I show you a picture and you like it, I'm happy.
Because we share something. We have something in common, however little
If you don't, then you like something else. That's all ther is to "likes"

[32BT]

I think that we're talking about critique coming from the users of this forum, among which there are people like me, who just don't look at a picture twice if they don't like it and from whom nobody has anything to learn, and on the other extreme people who not only know a lot but who have the patience and skill to explain and to teach.
This is what one can expect in a forum, IMHO. I have seen both types here and a lot in-between.

BTW I was not talking of "genre" but trying to give an example of how I react to beautiful and to horrible things, call them what you may.
In "music" you may personally also define what's music and what is noise.

About "likes" and the like (pun not intended), If I show you a picture and you like it, I'm happy.
Because we share something. We have something in common, however little
If you don't, then you like something else. That's all ther is to "likes"

Of course, and most people just sharing pictures value "likes" just as much as thoughtful critique. I didn't mean to dismiss the merit of simply sharing and liking, just that the value derived from those "Likes/Dislikes" AND from true critique are independent of the critics appreciation of a general set of pictures. Obviously, if somebody does not like Heavy Metal music, but keeps adding dislikes to all Heavy Metal posts, then it may be necessary to have a little chat with that somebody.

[armand]

I like it. Yes, the saturation should go down a notch but overall is still a pleasing shot. It doesn't have the strongest composition but it gives me a pretty good idea of how the area looks like and there is a role for these kind of shots.