Starfish Swirl by Kah Kit Yoong

Please note the following:

• This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.
• Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum.
• The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
• Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.

Honestly, I am not that excited about this photograph. I guess I am a bit tired of the near-far compositions, seascapes and long exposures with water--3 strikes!

I really don't find the composition all that strong and actually, very pedantic. The ghostly swirl is likely the reason this image was selected here and possibly by the photographer as well. My problem with it is that I don't find it very attractive or mysterious, just a phenomenon--it makes me wonder if there could have been a more interesting version to be had with other exposure times. As it is, my first impression was that it might have been added in post by someone who wasn't very good at post work. Interesting phenomenon to me are only interesting when they are interesting, and this isn't IMO.

If this swirl is supposed to be the focus, I think the image would've been much stronger without the top half of the image--maybe even if it isn't the focus. Here, we are first given a pretty predictable seascape and then discover this messy swirl. At least without the monoliths out in the sea, the image would have been a bit more focused on the subject and avoided the trite to some extent. It might have even made that phenomenon more interesting?

Anyway, I really don't have any opinion about this………

As it is, my first impression was that it might have been added in post by someone who wasn't very good at post work.

John, I wonder if the swirl was perchance a surprise that resulted from the delayed exposure. I am not sure that it was not shopped in, but it might have a natural cause, given the long exposure.

I have no doubt that it is a pretty picture. It simply smacks me as a bit over-saturated. I could be wrong.

You and I are certainly on the same page about time exposures of moving water, but some people love that effect. As for seascapes, the best views of seas are from sea kayaks and surf boards (or at least paddle boards), in my opinion, but who wants to let go of the paddle when the seas are running? As for boards, well. . . .

So, shots of craggy shorelines are what we are typically left with--some of them the most dramatic shots in photography. This one strives not for drama, but for another kind of mystery, in my opinion.

I rather like the crags in the distance, even though they might be in competition with the foreground for the viewer's attention.

I see in the swirl and the starfish a creature emerging from the primordial slime, with hands that resemble starfish. This is one to dream by, but I can't get in the mood for a nightmare. On some level, I think that it succeeds. Unfortunately, I am not on that level.

--Lannie

Sometimes less is more and more is too much and this is too much.

This just doesn't do it for me. Sorry. There's a very bland sky, the swirl appears to have been processed in. There seems to be too much filling the frame, especially the many starfish. The star at lower left is out of focus as well

I actually quite like the image, although I find it just slightly underexposed in my opinion.

There are parts of this I like, and parts I don't.

I sort of like the overall composition, and I like the (as another poster calls it) the near-far look. I like the colors, particularly the contrast in colors between the starfish and the rocks. I also like the way parts of the rocks seem to mirror the arms of the starfish. The sky looks realistic to me, rather than bland.

What I don't like are what appear to be sharpening artifacts, especially where the distant rocks meet the sky. That's always been one no-no that I can't get past when looking at any photograph. And for me, the photograph is...Just. Too. Small. In a scene like this, I want to see more detail. It might have even worked better as a horizontal composition, rather than a vertical. Or maybe even a pano.

And last but not least, the water and the "mysterious swirl". I'm not saying it isn't real, but it looks phony and a bit heavy-handed. As someone else mentions, perhaps a different exposure time would have given a better/different result.

Overall, it almost works for me, but almost doesn't really count. With a different exposure and a different layout, I'd probably look at it more, but as it is now, it's a one- or two-look photograph for me.

although there are a few minor things - I agree with a previous poster in that the soft starfish in the lower left corner, I still would put a print of this on my wall. Nice shot. Wish I had taken it.

The soft focus on the starfish on the left is due to it being under moving water during a long exposure. The vortex in the foreground pool is caused by the same effect, the foam on the surface has spun around in the pool while the shutter was open. There is another recent example in the photographer's portfolio with some foam leaving blurred trails around a rock formation.

I could easily be mistaken but I took John's original comment to mean that he thought the effect gave the visual impression of being created by someone with limited post processing skill rather than that he believed that to actually be the case.