To be honest, I had no intention of posting this image. I was shooting for my friend Joe Tucker and his Eye Training System..

Due to a last minute change..I'm uploading the image..

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1402580

It looks like I am first one up so I will do my best. 

First I would crop down to the tops of the heads and up from the bottom nearly to the cue ball to concentrate on the two people. Remove the part of the arm by the head and darken the blue of the background table. Remove the arm and blue by the top right corner leaving only the shirt of the player.
 
That said I like very much the lines of the cue and the arms.  I think I would remove the white thing on the suround but the chalk doesn't bother me. I guess in a perfect world both sets of eyes would be on the white cue ball (due to the target ball not being in the picture).

Posted some of the things done but would crop even more from the bottom than I have here.

Pat

Very quick from me. I agree with most of what Pat mentioned. I'm not a fan of the square crop, but it seem necessary here. I levt a bit more breathing room around their heads and got rid of distractions. I also blurred and darkened it up a bit more there. If I had more time, I would get rid of that thing behind his hat too, but it isn't a deal breaker. I go through several passses of processing with mostly transparent layers over the main image, and in each of these I heavily sharpened the image because the guy on the left's blurry eye bothered me. These layers included a shadow/hightlight layer, a multiply layer, and a "velvia" layer to give the colors more punch. As you can see, some detail that looked lost in the highlights came back. Nice one Bruce. I'd like to suggest posting a small version of the full image here in the future as a referrence so people can compare.

Neat shot btw and I've enjoyed your others in the gallery.

While I was working with this Kort posted. I felt much the same as Pat and Kort. I just completely removed the background and then darkend the shooter's right shoulder and cropped as I felt this could be an illustration of the system. But having looked more closely at Pat and Korts , the table in the background may add more interest to the shot.

Apart from agreeing with the crops and thoughts behind them i would have to say one basic thing: you are at 92mm and shooting at 1/25... which is very slow, unless you are using a tripod or support. The shot suffers slightly from lack of clarity either from motion blur (probably caused it on the guy on the left) or a bit of camera shake (probably accounting for the general "soft" focus the shot has on close inspection). Remedy for that is upping the ISO i suppose... what were you on?

i was taking pictures for a poetry reading last night and got bored with the style of photography and had my own flights of fancy so i could get through the 2 hours with my sanity intact Thus in the same esteem I was thinking in terms of a less "reportage" type shot and focused more on the game itself, thus taking the faces out of the equation. I did nothing here but a crop and sharpen:

You might even consider cropping out the wooden part of the rail to get rid of the chalk and focus more on the ball and cue.
Just a thought on how to approach a subject matter, because that really wast critiquing the shot itself.

Back on track here i think the shot is fairly flat, the rail is almost vertical in the shot and offers no dynamism in the perspective, moving slightly to the left or (i think might be better a angle) to the right would have lead the eye up the rail to the player and then the expanse of the table with the line created by the cue would lead it back onto the table... if you get what i mean... hopefully

Like the rest of my shots from that event..Flash was not allowed..

I really don't recall the ISO..but I'm guessing 200..
I'd have to look at the data for the image..I'm on my way out the door, so that will have to wait..

oh yeah - silly me i could have looked myself - it was on 200...

I agree with inshaala, to me the crop is not the major issue, the motion blur is the worst part of the image, I would be more inclined to go with TP's edit.

pushinfaders,  so far all suggestions are for postwork.  I see no techinical issues of the photo in the first place to criticise and will offer a possible postwork addition.

To me, the true tense nature of the shooters face is important.  This is his shot.  I did a very quickie selection and brought his face a bit.  Perhaps this works, perhaps being darker is better.  Look and see what you think.  Oh, I edited once more and brought the "assistant's" face down a tad, even if not evident now posted. : )

Still, the focus was limited by shooting conditions thereby limiting dof.  That is part of the circumstance.  The shooters face is there as a prime and nicely focused part of visual impact.

So much for my ability at this...a look see at my thoughts.       Tom.

I like the tight crop because it shows the aiming device..which is important..

The "assistant" is the inventor of the product..

can i ask something - this looks like a personal crit post, why is it a sticky?

pushinfaderes, I assume within the guidelines for the "critique" (this being the first) it is allowed to comment on the criticism of others?    For instance, if someone has a reason to think "my" correction or criticism is not valid, they may say that?

If the idea is to come to some summation of criticism or take or leave as we wish...comment toward another criticism would be welcomed in my opinion.

Yikes, now my voice has changed and I sound so formal..sorry about that.   Let me know. Thanks.       Tom.

Peewee: He posted a shot up because no-one came forward to offer one of theirs for the Constructive Critique thread. And Tom - i think that is definitely part of the exchange here.

 I am surprised there are no other takers. This could be really helpful. Even if you don't agree with everything that is put forward. It can lead to a new take / slant on your photos. It would be a shame to let this opportunity pass without a try.  

Will it die before it really gets off the ground?
Sad that would be

Pat

I think it will continue Pat. We've had our two for this week, and I am not sure how much more can be said for this image. I will offer to provide the next one if no one else is interested.

Oh!!! Now I feel so blonde... Tx so much for clearing that up :D

So do we submit shit shots that need alot of improvement or ones that are just missing that special something?

Honestly, I not sure how it works other than you load a gallery image with comments off and link it to the forum. Bruce, can you help us with info about how we decide who goes next? And I would at least try with your photos. Maybe ones that you feel have potential but are not quite there.

Pee Wee, I personally would use an image I felt was worthy of gallery posting in the first place..that way the critique will be more meaningful.  

Pishinfaders, it is your turn.  So, how did this go?  Did you find any relief in criticism you did not get? Did you find that any of the thoughts and images "speak" to you and are worthwhile?  Did any of the suggestions meet the feeling of the actual event more than your original image?

When you get a chance, give us your thoughts on how this went.  Fair enough?

I will submit an image someday..who knows when I will post another gallery image..I don't have a schedule for that.   When I do, perhaps I will submit it to the Contructive Critique.

Thanks.   Tom.  

PS.  I suspect these critique threads will not be lengthy..but I feel this can be quite valuable for anyone willing to give it a shot.

Ya know, if you submitted this for stock photography, you should keep the entire shot - it has enough non-descript room above and below the direct subject for titles and credits and slug-lines. It gives Creative Directors and graphic artists room for play.
There can be pro and con arguments about the movement in the shot, but I kinda like the motion in this one. So many times I've seen stock shots of people "doing" something and it was obviously staged and they're frozen - it just looks fake to me - I think this looks fine.

I remember you were having trouble or doubts about your settings when shooting this - they were tough conditions and you did just great with it. There's only just so much you can do with low-light and handheld (ahh, happy thoughts that I'll never shoot another wedding again!) before introducing excessive grain by pushing the ISO higher and higher.

As far as the crops go - I'm liking TwoPynts' and Inshaala's - either save a little bit of headroom (just personal taste) or go WAY in and cut to the chase.

Sorry I couldn't add too much. Side note: I really like the back-and-forth going on with these crits! Good stuff being pointed above by all!

-Lew ;-)