Too much.

Of what? (Everything, probably).

If I tell you, you will only blind me with technical information,
especially if I ask to see the "original".

But the composition is actually pretty good for a change.

As ever, the stone that the builders rejected....

In the distance you can see Hadleigh Castle, depicted here: Sadly, even less of it remains standing than did in Constable's day.

Did Constable ever visit Shepperton, also famous for its skies?

Haha.

To my eye, this painting and his Dedham Vale one (of which I have a print on my wall) are the finest fine art and what I try to imitate photographically.

Of my four latest pictures, only one is very well composed, and it isn't this one, which I initially rejected as not interesting enough. It and the other castle and cow parsley shots were the best I could do then and there. Not every subject will compose well.

You normally blame the weather or time limitation for any inadequacies, but this beats all when we have the photographer blaming the subject. Of the four shots, I would rate this as compositionally the best, though I'm guessing you prefer the boats.

The only problem with this is it's too dazzling, and I'm guessing you've enhanced it in some way to make it so, though you're bound to tell me it's "as was".

As Ansel Adams said, "You don't take a photograph, you make it", but even the best photographer can only make so much from a scene which from no angle or POV will compose perfectly.

As I've said before, no photograph can ever be exactly "as was", and for the pictorial photographer, who "makes" photographs, to reproduce a scene exactly "as was" isn't the objective.

This is the ex-camera .jpg:



- "as was". If you prefer it to the enhanced version, fair enough, but I do not.

The ex-camera is certainly preferable to your dazzling "pictorial" version. It could possibly benefit from a little enhancement, but you have gone over the top in your quest for perfection.

Our screen contrast settings may be different. On my PC monitor and smartphone the ex-camera version and the foreground in your picture look slightly flat and dull, and my 'pictorial' version much closer to the bright-sun lit reality, which I do not need sunglasses to look at.

Yes, I agree that it could be brightened up a little, but you've gone OTT.
If that's your reality, then I suspect that your tea has been spiked.

I can only and will render my pictures how TO ME they appear most pleasing. But it's clear that the perceptions and preferences of others may be different from mine, and I accept that. Preferences are by definition personal and not subject to judgement.

Constable's style, in his time, was not to everyone's taste, but it was his own and he did not compromise it in deference to criticism, even from RA members, and I'm grateful to him for that.

My own preferences have very often been subject to your judgement, and I do not mind a bit (except when it escalates into moving boats and buses, and cloning inappropriate swans).

Constable is obviously very much to your taste, if you hang his work in your bedroom,
but I'm afraid I do not see any likeness in your own work.

Of course I cannot produce anything mistakable for a Constable, but my idea of composition (including trees included to their full height and "tall", dramatic skies) is modeled on his.