Critique of a photograph is not only about the technical merits or deficiencies of a picture but also about the final result, the effect it has on the viewer as a picture. photographers are a small percentage of the general population and we look at things often in a somewhat fixed manner. We are almost conditioned to think 'Crop, exposure, depth of field...' but the vast majority of people look at it as an image and their decision is based on 'Do i like this or not?' I think it is important on here that we try and do both, not just one thing or the other.
Yes, there are a couple of technical faults here, I would prefer the image to have been taken from a lower viewpoint, right down near ground level to give more impact. But do i like the image as a picture? yes i do. It has interest both in the foreground, middle ground and background, the colours are good and it records a very presentable impression of the scene. it isn't a scan so that doesn't come into it. Any lost detail is a combination of an older camera and the compression so that is fair enough.
it is an enjoyable picture so well done fi
Rob