Happily Ever After
by BobsterLobster

Comment:
Greetings from the Critque Club!

Composition:
Your framing is spectacular. The couple is rule of thirds, the flag poles are all ragged and leading down to your subjects. The colors you captured are gorgeous.

Lighting:
Perfect. The people are perfect silohets, the texture on the ground is a nice touch. (someone said they'd have preferred no detail in the foreground, while that is usually good, I really think it works well for your photo.)

Technical:
Your technique is flawless.

Post-processing:
I'm sure you messed around with levels etc or something similar. You did nicely, not only are the results gorgeous, but it doesn't have that overly-processed look. Whatever you did, it definately looks good in this photo.

Overall:
I wouldn't change a thing. Excellent capture, excellent submission. This challenge had some stiff competition, so your 82% percentile finish is well earned.

Look forward to future submissions.

'Pi' in the eye.
by casualguy

Comment:

Originally posted by jimmygurl09: this is the stupidist picture i have ever seen u r just wasting film ne ways i rate u a 1

Your maturity's showing.

Electric Fragility
by moodville

Comment:
Gorgeous!

Truly shows that "weeds" are only flowers society has deemed as "unwanted". When they truly are just as beautiful as any other flower!

SMOG! Air conditions for downtown area worsen.
by chik0325

Comment:
Greetings from the Critque Club!

Composition:
This is a stellar "newspaper" photo. Your photo really demonstrates the problems large cities have to deal with. Just a personal suggestion, I would've loved to see some exhaust coming out of the back of the bus as it pulled away from the curb. It would've really been a nice touch. A second suggestion would've been to get a "rush hour" look with the smog. Since public transportation is actually a way to decrease smog, not increase it. Not to say that's what you were trying to portray, but simply what would've added to this shot.

Lighting:
Your lighting is a little dark, chances are the camera over-compensated for the light smog at the top of the frame. If you can do exposure compensation on your photo, that would've helped it. I still like it how it is though.

Technical:
Your technique is sound. The over-exposing a hair would be the only thing I can recommend as that is concerned.

Post-Processing
The photo is in focus if only a little soft from the resize. Unsharp mask after resizing would've sharpened up your photo. (the bottom close stuff specifically)

You might also want to consider using a perspective adjustment. Since your wide angle makes the buildings lean toward each other. Getting them straight would be slightly more pleasing to the eye.

Overall:
I like this shot a lot. You captured this challenge spot on. With a little adjustment to your exposure, and minor editing I think you could've placed higher.

I hope you do better in the future. Keep up the excellent submissions.

Turret View
by majuicy

Comment:
. . .

Breakfast for Two
by OneSweetSin

Comment:
Greetings from the Critque Club!

Composition:
While it is a very centered photo, there is enough going on to keep your interest. The real downfall is your background. It's just too much for the photo. An out of focus kitchen would seem more appropriate for this shot. And quite a bit more natural of course. After reading your comments I'm surprised you removed the kitten. I think "Breakfast for Three" would've made the photo that much more interesting, as well as 'cute' :)

Lighting:
I think your lighting is good. His face isn't hid in shadows, and your exposure is just fine. I think the real problem is the brightness of the background, you take that away and the photo looks a lot better.

Technical:
I think your photo is technically flawless, everything looks good as far as your technique is concerned.

Post-processing:
You might want to consider adding a touch of contrast to it. It is a touch on the flat side right now. Other than that it looks good.

Overall:
This is a great shot. I like it a lot. With a more appropriate background I think you would've scored higher. But even the best photos will get hit hard if the voter doesn't see it as fitting the challenge. As you said many will feel this was a snapshot, and they voted accordingly. I think people were really looking for the "Sunday at Sears" look. ;)

Hope your photos score more deservingly in the future.

. . . Ladybug
by ladpupmoe

Comment:
Greetings from the Critque Club!

Composition:
I love this composition. It's a shiny little ladybug for sure! I think if you had shown more of what's around it though, the selective desaturation would've had more impact. As it is, the ladybug is the foreground, and desaturating doesn't change that fact. I wrote a post on choosing the right photo for selective desaturation, might be good for you to look over it.

Lighting:
The lighting in this photo is gorgeous. Specifically the reflection on the bug. Your exposure is spot on, no worries there.

Technical:
Someone said the ladybug is a little soft on the focus, and I can see their point, but I wouldn't say it's out by a lot.

Post-processing:
This is where your photo needs the most work. First of all there is still color in the entire photo. There is a greenish tint to all the plant material. I would've liked to see you just select the bug, and do a full desaturate. Since now you removed other colors from the bug that help define it's actual color. I'm not sure if you just forgot the green channel or what...

Overall:
This is a very cool macro bug shot. You just need to work on your desaturation technique.

Hope you do better next time.

Kite Surfer
by Stagolee

Comment:
Greetings from the Critque Club!

Composition:
This is a great action photo. Lots going for it, the waves, the water spray, everything looks great. It's just not a good selective desaturation picture.

When you selectively desaturate you're making a new foreground. You should read this post I made about choosing good photos for it.

Lighting:
Your lighting is great. The only thing I'd like changed is the shadow on his face.

Technical:
Technically sound. It's in focus, your DoF was nicely chosen. I have no complaints here.

Post-processing:
This is where you need work. While it may not be very noticable. There is still color in _most_ of the photo. You barely desaturated anything. About all I notice is the far shore was desaturated. There is color in the water, on the board, on him, and on the cables. It really does look like a normal full color photo.

Overall:
You have a great capture here. It just doesn't work for Selective Desaturation. A great photo in the wrong challenge will still score badly.

I look forward to future submissions.

Aspiring Classic
by hughletheren

Comment:
Greetings from the Critque Club!

Composition:
I strongly agree with nborton; a more unique perspective would be a lot more interesting. There is nothing that makes this shot "special" if you will. As far as the challenge, I think this is "O.K." but again nothing special. I wrote a short forum post on how to choose good selective desaturation photos. You might want to read it here.

Lighting:
Your lighting is fine, seems pretty midday, you might want to consider early evening, or late morning for warmer light.

Technical:
Your photo is technically sound. But I find it hard to believe that the f/3.5 was the same as the f/22 shot. Were you just looking at the car for comparison?

Post-processing:
Your editing is fine, I see no problems with it. I don't have any suggestions either though.

Overall:
A very average photo, that's what hurt your score. I think if you choose a better subject for selective desaturation, you'd have a much more intriguing photo.

That's Extraordinary!!!!
by LENWOODBLUZ

Comment:
This is just creepy :)