Sorry Danic and Don, but I respectfully disagree.

Saying that an image looks over-processed is not an out of line comment, nor bad critique. Note that I didn't criticize it for being processed, but "over processed." That's a subjective thing I admit, but when I see artifacts appearing, I know there's a problem.

Plus, as I stated before, I really don't understand why this particular image needed it. If you look at the scene, remnants of old oil paint and other stuff with some really neat curvy design, it's a super creative place to photograph and I would have to guess that it would totally stand on it's own. I can see someone manipulating it as an experiment perhaps, but I just don't think it needs it.

I guess I consider technical issues very critique-able along with composition, creativity, imagination, and everything else that constitutes the world of photography. Indeed, it's more objective critique than that concerning creativity. It's up to the artist to take the advice or ignore it. In the end though, their body of work will probably reflect their decision.

GB