Lucky Strike
by bgslaw

Comment:
Interesting lightning shapes, but the sky is overexposed for my taste and the buildings seem a bit softer than they should be.

Begonia
by cyan

Comment:
Good composition and subject, and the sharpness is pretty good, but the murky grey-green background is yuck. Increase the contrast to make the background darker - black or close to it - and make the plant just a little brighter, and you'll find the image has a lot more impact.

Daylilies by Night
by sasada

Comment:
Good concept, and surprisingly good sharpness for a long exposure - but it needs either more exposure or more contrast, it's just too dark and subdued. Try it again, you'll discover that nighttime photography is a good opportunity to make your colours pop!

Sleeping Beauty (an Angel in the night)
by Michaelsink

Comment:
Interesting idea, but the closeness and the short focal length has overemphasised your model's arm - particularly her upper arm - in a way that is not at all flattering. The blue lighting also highlights skin blemishes and tonal variations in a pretty unflattering way. I think this would be improved by backing off, and then using a longer focal length to keep your model dominant in the frame, but without the perspective distortions. Also a bit more movement, softening or a different lighting colour may help - this image doesn't, in my mind, do your model justice.

Infrared Flame
by chimericvisions

Comment:
Nothing in this image appears sharp, but at the same time it doesn't look like it was deliberately shot to be soft. The silhouettes of the logs aren't particularly interesting, and there is very obvious colour banding in the highlight areas throughout the top half of the image. Removing colour is good if it allows you to concetrate on tonal relationships, pattern, shape or texture - but in this case, the image doesn't really have any of those. Sorry.

The 30 second story of Malcome Reynolds
by phototure

Comment:
What am I looking at here? It just looks like a mishmash of historical memoribilia with no obvious relationship or organisation, and some very odd shapes (the dark curve in the top left corner, the empty area in the top right) - I don't get any sense of "story" here, let alone who Malcome Reynolds might be. The small size of the image doesn't help either.

Marina
by ClintonREwing

Comment:
There is simply too much flared highlights in this photo, causing the boats to lose a lot of detail and introducing visible banding in the sky - especially on the left, but throughout. There's not really a strong centre of interest in the image either. Controlling the highlights/contrast and concentrating on just one or two boats could improve this image, I think - the panoramic sky can work sometimes, but it isn't working here.

Table Mountain
by life

Comment:
This photograph is too hazy and low-contrast to really be effective, the mountain doesn't have enough impact and there's no other centres of interest in the photo to capture the viewer's attention. I suggest that you need to increase the contrast so that the mountain stands out more against the sky. You might want to try altering the colour temperature too to see how it affects your image.

Garden Night Lights
by arrowsmith

Comment:
I'm not sure what the problem is - either it's badly underexposed, or correctly exposued but no centre of interest, just a scene of random nothingness. Try this again with a more interesting scene, or adding even a bit more to some other parts of the scene to give the eye something to catch its attention.

City on Fire
by javakills

Comment:
This is way too overexposed; the light flareouts are painful rather than pleasing, and the light grey featureless sky does nothing. A long exposure could work here, but you need a much smaller aperture to ensure less light gets in - try underexposing by half a stop or so. Also, cropt out a lot of the sky because it adds nothing (unless you get some features in it).