That swan sure knows how to ruin a good picture. (looks like he's flown off now)

But even without the swan, you have ruined the essence of the picture by adding a fake sky and changing the spring trees to a gaudy shade of green. You have also cropped the chestnut candles on the left and truncated a beautiful stretch of river, leaving the scene looing like Could-be-Anywhere.

You are technically very good, but sadly lacking a photographer's eye.

I, at least, am the first of those things.

As for looing like, that's a matter of public convenience.

If I lack a photographer's eye, then my faving and commending others' work is no value, sadly. And owing to that lack, possibly, while I do see merit in many of your pictures, I see very little in this one. However beautiful the river and the trees, when as visually monotonous and repetitive as they are here, only so much of them should be included.

My pictures get rubbished when the eye is led in more than one direction. Here, the eye is led nowhere. Even if you don't like the swan or the sky, removing the western third at least makes a focal point of the buildings, birds and the rightmost tree, which are (relatively) interesting, and a bit more East would have helped here.

Producing technically brilliant crap.

I would rate this as one of my best. The trees aren't monotonous, but awesome in their spring green finery, blending so well with the clear morning sky and evocative of similar mornings in childhood. There is sufficient variation on the left to prevent any visual monotony, but you have bizarrely cropped this area out, causing your own version to look monotonous.

It is not intended for the eye to be led anywhere, except to the riverside trees and perfect blue sky. The buildings are certainly not the focal point, and I would have preferred them not to be there. The rightmost tree is not a main point of interest either, but included only to balance the leftmost trees, with the whole connected by the faint contrails.

Your version is quite unbalanced and devoid of any atmosphere. The magic of the day has been lost with that inappropriate sky, and the gaudy greens are quite nauseating.

The gaudy greens and sky apart (only so much can be made of a low-res screen capture) my version is at least a picture. Yours may to you evoke pleasant memories, but that's a very personal thing. I find it seriously lacking in interest and my eye wanders around wondering what it's supposed to be looking at.

Your version is a picture D-void of any interest and with nowhere for the eye to rest without being distracted by something else. The sickly colour scheme cannot be blamed on factors other than yourself, and the cloned swan seems to be peering into a deep pool of despond.

1. Whose version are we taking about?
2. As I've said, this was just a quick thumbnail adaptation of a screen capture. Were it a serious attempt at a picture, the original colours and even sky would have been retained. It's the composition and content which are the point.
3. It must have swam (or flown) up from the Thames near Slough.

1. YOUR version, of course (your complete D-basement of a good picture).

2. Your sense of composition is (in my opinion) seriously flawed, not just with this one, but with many of your own.The point here is NOT to lead the eye down the river to some half-hidden buildings, but to emphasise the long stretch of deep-green river bordered by the spring-green trees and perfect blue sky above. Even if you retain the original colours, you have missed the essence of the picture with your ridiculous crop and made it very boring.

3. The swan should be roasted.

And in MY opinion, if this is one of your best, it doesn't say much for the others.

The "point" of your picture may be those things, but that point will be missed by most people who look at it, for the reasons I've explained. Perception of the "essence" of anything can often be a two-stage process, and the first (as in this case) must be something that catches the eye and sparks interest in it, and that is lacking here.

That is your lack of discernment.

Which I'll demonstrate, if you so wish, by praising this picture unreservedly.

No, please don't praise a picture you don't like. I have little inclination to engage with the "good shot" types who never have a bad word to say about anything.

What catches the eye here is the greenness of the spring trees against an almost summery early morning sky. Enough variation is given by the larger trees on the left. There is no need for a swan or an eye-catching red boat, either of which would distract from the essence of the picture.

Did you know that Greensted is still invisible?