Used to be fresh
by Lilhoop

Comment:
It's still hardly spoiled.

Leaves
by dabidejpn

Comment:
"3.5"...umm, "4."

Early Daffodils, Clearing Storm
by Bear_Music

Comment:
Awesome shot, but is this a product of "selective coloring"? If so, is that in accordance with the rules?

OUCH! Sharp
by tngrndream

Comment:
So...what's "new"? The cut? I don't buy it (or don't get it).

Silence eyes...
by raduste

Comment:
Very "National Geographic." Umm..."something new"?

My grandmother's hands
by GijaMini

Comment:
The shot is well-composed but terribly focused; further, it has absolutely nothing to do with "something new." Did you mean to submit this to the other, "something old," challenge?

Promise of a new day
by Gert

Comment:
Gorgeous landscape shot. I just love it; I want it to be one of the months on my calender. :D

New Growth
by ghettophoto

Comment:
A beautiful, beautiful image. I have pretty muh nothing else to say, Good work.

toscana
by magnex

Comment:
The submission is too small to be properly critiqued, and the image itself has absolutely nothing to do with the theme of the challenge. It looks almost as though you just randomly chose a picture from your hard drive that you liked.

Levi's jeans: 148 € or 182$ but who gives a fly, they look GOOD :)
by Krisby

Comment:
I'm sorry, "$182"? Is that right? One hundred and eighty-two U.S. Dollars? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Paying ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-TWO UNITED STATES DOLLARS, for a pair of god-damned PANTS. They're PANTS. I don't give a "fly" if they shrink your ass down to a "2": THEY ARE PANTS. They're blue and made of denim, and they're pants; and it is INSANE to pay $182.00 for a pair of pants. Jeans, at that. Jeans: pants DESIGNED to be worn mainly in casual situations. Hell, even if they were for "professional purposes," they would be ludicrously, and unacceptably over-priced. Wait...what were we doing, again? Right, photo-rating. Umm...nice picture.

P.S. PANTS.