I'm not backtalking!
by Dennisheckman

Comment:
Nicely minimalist, which I like, but the rendering of the birds is either too bad, or too good, to be arresting. By that I mean the birds have to be either perfectly clear and sharp (they aren't), or so negligently rendered as to be transformative (and again, they aren't). What it feels like is near miss. But it's a pleasing picture, if not quite as good as it very nearly was! Thank you.

Make Way for Ducklings
by PennyStreet

Comment:
There's nothing you can do with a picture of a duck to make me excited. I've seen too many pictures of ducks, I suppose. That's perhaps the point about duck pictures. The quality of the photography's very nice though. Thank you.

I believe I can fly
by nikkic

Comment:
Slightly weird perspective, but it presents a surprising & unfamiliar look at whatever bird this may be, and that's a bonus. Thank you.

chipmonk
by tvsometime

Comment:
It's a very competent picture without any heart in it. I am unfamiliar with chipmunks and I'd like to have learned something, or felt something, about this chipmunk from looking at the picture. But I don't feel any more informed than I did before I looked at it. I think the photographer's job is to reveal something that's otherwise not necessarily evident. Even if what's revealed isn't objective but rather is subjective and particular to your own point of view (actually, especially then). Not everyone agrees with me, of course. And it is a very clean, unequivocal picture of the subject. Thank you.

None Shall Pass
by Bruce_the_Robert

Comment:
Remarkable depth of field effect; so remarkable that it nearly has the opposite of its intended effect of focusing the attention on the critter. The actual picture of the squirrel (maybe it's a chipmunk?) is very clean and appealing though. Thank you.

feral - but so cute
by Abra

Comment:
Nice animals, high cuteness factor, but the picture's not particularly distinguished by much beyond that. I'm being a bit unfair though; this is their real, natural environment and how else are you supposed to depict them? I guess what I'm saying is there's nothing arresting about the photo, and I think there always should be something transformative or singular added by the photographer, otherwise why take the photograph? But you're sure right about the cute part! Thank you.

Beasty Besties
by jomari

Comment:
I usually like weird crops, and subjects bisected by the frame, but not this time alas. The top right corner is a discordant note that makes it impossible for me to see anything else. Shut one eye; didn't help much. But I still like the marsupials which remind me of home. Thank you

Anyone Home?
by KatPsen

Comment:
Well done for trying something different. It's a bilious-looking picture, but better that than another colourful duck. Thank you.

Great Blue Herons with chicks
by sfalice

Comment:
Interesting herons but the picture's a bit messy because for me it seems uncertain and (pardon the pun) unfocused. There's so much detail included that the execution has to be perfect it carry it off and alas, it isn't. Maybe it's a severe crop from a long-lens picture, and suffers a bit technically as a result? It's a worthy subject but seems too confused to be a strong image. But nevertheless, thank you.

Punxsutawney Phil's cousin
by mlu

Comment:
It's a nice picture of Phil's cousin, but only moderately interesting to me because it doesn't communicate anything beyond the fact that you can take a technically-plausible picture. But I'm probably missing the point. And he/she certainly is a likeable critter. Thank you.