Stills

A slither of interest in a mass of void. Having said that, I'd really like to clone out that suspicious object in the water about a cm up from the bottom and two from the left. Again (and probably more obvious with this one) the background is a wash with some individual elements that lift it out a little.
 

The concept works well with the distant crane and buildings vs. the more traditional style of the house and the color, water and reflection are serene and lovely.

I feel it is a bit "heavy" on the right. I wish for a patch of sky perhaps where those dark trees are on the edge to balance it out a bit.
 

I've been struggling with this. I'm now seeing it on my photo processing computer (i.e. posh screen) rather than on my laptop. It actually makes quite a lot of difference - both to the colours and to the clarity of the distant tones. The four cubes to the left now stand out much more and begin to create some of the balance that I thought was missing.

As it happens I wouldn't clone out the suspicious object. For me it is more an auspicious object in that it brings an element of awkwardness to the shot and it creates an anchor. The awkwardness is important because it helps stop the view becoming too vague and wispy.
 

I don't believe in 'tidying' images up too much. The 'object' is big enough not to be a blemish or error and it doesn't detract for me, so it should be there.

Next I'm in danger of being accused of being a classical club judge but I don't think all the sky is necessary. A chunk is required to create atmosphere of the misty dull day, not all is needed.

I like the juxtaposition of the 'classical'peaceful foreground and the city in the background
 

I think Rex is on to something -- and I'm usually a fan of more sky. But it does seem to bring a bit more balance when some of it is cropped.
 

Is this a case of seeing what we want to see?

I mean, I can't really think of a possible relationship between the traditional house (of which we don't know when it was built) and the city in the background. They do look quite distant.

It seems to me the relationship is entirely fabricated by the picture framing. It looks like we are supposed to reflect on the good old time versus the ugly polluted new city being constructed and nearly obliterating the past. Every time I see such a picture I grow more awkward about it. I have done similar things and regret having done it.

Of course I have no idea of this subject's reality. I have not been there. There is no reason to think Doug had all those thoughts going on when he did the picture. But this old/modern opposition is the only subject I can find in it and this is it what I react to.
 

I only noticed the title. It only reinforces my sentiment.
 

Like Christina, I find this a bit heavy on the right.

As Stephane points out, the juxtaposition of old and new may be a bit blunt. Rapidly growing economies tend to be a bit blunt though, so perhaps there is act of photographic fabrication going on here.
 

No, there isn't too much sky: the scene needs space. No. the object shouldn't be cloned out: it is nature. No, there is nothing wrong with the juxtaposition whether intended or not: we cannot pretend to avoid seeing what is happening; good or not. Not do I think that it is heavy to the right: it is a valid composition.
 

Not sure why my first post this morning did not go through, so if this gets repeated, I'll come back and delete it;- )

First, thanks for your many thoughts and comments. This image was made on my 2nd China trip, and I was actually trying to avoid the background construction. After my 3rd trip and I wanted to include that construction, did I go back to my earlier work and find out a few images had the construction sneaking in.