There is a lot of background for this colorful bird. The bird seems almost centered (the least interesting place to put the subject). Whatever he is standing on is brighter than the bird. Keep in mind the eye goes to the brightest area of an image first. The image is not as powerful as it could be if the brightest area is not the subject, or in the case of high-key, not emphasizing the subject. The birds colors do not seem as vibrant as they could be. Compare the visual critique with the original. What do you think?

There is a lot of foreground and background for what seems to be the subject (the geese). The center of reflection of the geese is a little above center of the image. Symmetry allows us to place the center of the reflection in the middle of the image. This image misses that mark. If the geese are the subject, they are small in the frame and the geese on the left are close to the edge and seem to be leaving the frame. Not sure of the photographer’s intent, but this feels like a “look what I saw” shot. A little time, patience, and perhaps longer lens could have strengthened this shot. See the visual critique.

This image could have been shot anywhere and the fact that the title says it was in Munich Park doesn’t mean anything to the viewer or judge. Nothing in the image says, “Munich Park”. Notice how the flowers in foreground and background at the top of the frame are brighter than the people in the photo. People should not have to compete with flowers for attention, they should complement each other. Also notice how close the people are to the edges. They feel crowded in the frame and the dog’s head is in a weird place. Special care should be taken when photographing multiple subjects in one photograph to ensure they don’t compete for attention (unless that was the artists intent). See the visual critique to see how the people were made brighter and the flowers were toned down to minimize competing for attention.

The background is brighter than the subject. The lower portion of the flower petals (Yellow Tips) is cut off at an uncomfortable location. A little more room may ease this tension. See the visual critique with the darkened background. What do you think?

What caused you to create this photograph. If I had to guess, it would be the vibrant sunflower. Look at your image; does the upper left corner help the expression? Nothing is neutral in an image and this area detracts from what I perceive to be your expression. Compare the before and after in the visual critique and notice how the processing eliminated the unnecessary so the necessary can speak. Also, see how the flower has been “opened up” to add to the expression of the sunflower?

The flowers dominate the scene and diminish the buildings. I think I see the intent, but this image falls short. I can imagine how beautiful it must have been standing there, but it is important to understand a camera does not see the way we do. The light is wrong for what I imagine is trying to be expressed. Notice in the original how the flowers seem a little dark and I am certain the were very vibrant in person. Also notice how washed out the sky is. This may have been a case for HDR. Processing a lo-resolution jpeg can be problematic, but I made the attempt to try and visually articulate the critique.

Beautiful bird in a static pose. I know the title says there is a nest, but it would have anchored the title if you could actually see the nest. Notice the image seems a little bright and flat, and the sky is brighter than the subject and washed out. Some may say, well that is just the way it was. Perhaps, but a slight underexposing of the scene may have added a little depth and contrast, allowing the statement to be finished in post processing. See the visual critique for comparison. Finally, when shooting birds on nests, spend time with them and photograph them doing something. Flying in, flying out, building the nest, feeding chicks, etc.… The action is a difference make in an image.

Lupine have beautiful blooms, so I understand what pulled the photographer to photograph them. Keep in mind there is nothing more important than the subject and there is nothing more important that the background. Good subject with a bad background = substandard shot. Same as a good background with a bad subject. The stream is not important to this shot the way it is composed. The stream is brighter than the subject and notice the way the blooms enter the bottom of the frame. They are cut off in an uncomfortable “feeling” location. Seeing more of where they originate could have strengthened this shot. See the visual critique. What do you think?

Good attempt but the image is missing a strong point of interest and foreground anchor. Notice how a foreground stick on the right side is coming out of the bottom of the frame. May have been better to include all of it or eliminate it. The image also seems a little bright and flat (low contrast). The light is somewhat harsh. A polarizing filter could have helped the sky and clouds. Compare the visual critique to the original. What do you think?

Yellow is a vibrant and fun color to photograph. This bloom fills the frame to a point it feels crowded. Many subjects have a feeling of movement or view. This bloom feels like it is pointing or looking out of the frame. Leaving a little more room around the bloom may have helped the subject. Also notice how the stone wall is brighter than the flower. This background as framed doesn’t flatter the subject. Look at the visual critiques. Which one has a stronger visual appeal?

Good shot and it seems the photographer was close to being at the owl’s eye level. The depth of field seems appropriate for this subject. Not everything needs to be tack sharp to have a successful image. A slight underexposing from the metering would have helped this shot. Underexposing can add contrast and saturation enhancing the image. This change in exposure can also be addressed in post processing. Notice the owl’s left eye as we view the image. See the blown out section? A catch light always enhances an animal’s or person’s eye. But there are always exceptions to every rule. The exception is when and animal’s eyes are bright and/or colorful. The segment in this owl’s eye is more than just a catch light. It’s a large blown out area in relation to the size of the eye. Enough about that. The image seems a little bright and flat and the background and foreground are larger than they need to be. The foreground being out of focus does not add interest due to the lack of flowers. See the visual critique. Is the edit a stronger image? Does it emphasize the title of the image? Does a little darkening, contrast, and fixing the blown out portion of the eye (ok, I will mention it one more time) create a stronger image?

This could be a springtime photograph anywhere in the world. Nothing in the image says “Salzburg”. You don’t get points for where you created the photograph. This image seems to be created midday. The light is harsh and the image seems a little bright and flat (lacking contrast). The body of water does not add to the shot. A different composition could have eliminated the water. Compare the side by side visual critique. Does the post processing for exposure and contrast help the image?

Compositionally strong. Let’s keep this critique simple. Compare the side by side visual critique and let me know what you think. Yours is on the left.

Simply stated photograph with an attractive bokeh (pronounced /bōˈkā/). Bokeh is the visual quality of the out of focus area of an image. Truly little to critique with this image. Compare the side by side visual critique/edit for my ideas. Can you see them? Do they matter? Some may say this is picking the fly shit out of the pickle barrel, but I submit that this attention to detail is the difference between a good image and a great image.

I started sweating when I saw this image. I will be right back…need to get a cold drink.
Nice portrait shot that tells a story. A few comments: A different crop could have helped the image. Look at the hand at the bottom of the frame. It would have been a stronger image to include all of the hand holding the wrapper of excluded it altogether. As is sets it feel like it was an oversight. Also the image seem bright and somewhat flat. Compare the side by side critique. What do you think of the crop and color correction (such as it is for a jpeg).

Simply stated with good focus and detail in all the right areas. My only comment would be to look at the background. Do the bright leaves impact the image? Compare the side by side visual critique. Does the darker background help? Does it even matter? No points were deducted for the comparison. It was simple shown as an idea for controlling the background.

Nice tight portrait. Well composed. Looks posed.
Notice her right hand (left side as we see it) has lost detail in some of the fingers. Exposing for the highlights could have helped this shot. The image also feels a little flat with subdued tonalities. See the side by side comparison. Does the added contrast and color management help the shot? Does it matter? One more thought; the image may have added interest and a little mystery if the young lady was not looking directly at the camera. In other words, a candid shot may have been more interesting.

Subject is in the left power point. Image has a lot of contrast (dynamic range beyond what the camera is capable of). There is a bright tree and blown out sky are in the upper right segment of the image. Are they necessary for the “First One Out” statement? Does that area add to or detract from the image? If it was necessary, HDR (High Dynamic Range) would have helped. See the side by side comparison. Does the edit enforce the title? Notice the crop and processing. It is to my taste…does it work with your aesthetic?

Composition, choice of monochrome, torn edges, and graininess all work together in this image to tell a story. Of course, this story could have been told during the Spanish Flu or great depression, as well as today. Keeping in mind that there is nothing neutral in our photography…is everything in your photograph necessary? Does every element support what you are trying to say?

What I am speaking to now is more of my aesthetic. Turning your art into my art is what I have been trying to avoid with critiques. Having said that, compare the side-by-side visual critique. I refined the image down to its basic elements. In my mind the window is bright and doesn’t help the statement. My eye is constantly drawn to the brightness which distracts me from the shelves. Once the bright area is gone, I can concentrate on the empty shelves and product pricing. I also don’t think the wine cases and pictures on the wall are necessary to the “Who has bread” question.

By the way; if I had to answer the question, I would suggest it is the same person with all of the toilet paper.

There is a lot of foreground and background for what seems to be the subject (the geese). The center of reflection of the geese is a little above center of the image. Symmetry allows us to place the center of the reflection in the middle of the image. This image misses that mark. If the geese are the subject, they are small in the frame and the geese on the left are close to the edge and seem to be leaving the frame. Not sure of the photographer’s intent, but this feels like a “look what I saw” shot. A little time, patience, and perhaps longer lens could have strengthened this shot. 

Well, I guess safer at home does have us photographing in the backyard, and playing with Legos too it seems. This is a fun image and is compositionally strong. Good job getting the model to cooperate. Only real comment could have been on processing. No points were deducted, but compare the side-by-side visual critique. In your mind, does the lightening, darkening, and contrast matter?

An image with impact… The square orientation is appropriate. Compositionally, there is a lot going on with different elements – pointing hand, hair groomer, father, son, and look on child’s face, all agreeing with the subject or task. There is nothing in this image that doesn’t belong. In fact, if any one of these elements was missing the image would be less.

The only comment could be on lighting and processing. You can see where the shadows and highlights are. An off camera strobe could have opened up the boy’s face while allowing the photographer to underexpose the background a little.

This image has IMPACT...It is almost as if she is staring straight into my heart. I feel for her. The depth of field is appropriate. Her eyes and hands clutching best friend are tack sharp as they should be. Notice the blown out areas on her baby and her left sleeve. Under exposing about 1 stop from what was shot may have prevented those hot spots. This would have however required some processing to make your subject a little brighter. The jump from a great shot to a superior shot is in the details. Compare the digital critiques. Does eliminating the hot spots improve the shot? Points were deducted for this.

 Your choice of processing was your artistic statement. Compare my version. This is processed to my taste…no points were deducted, I just wanted to show the possibilities.

 Yours on the left – Yours with removed hot-spots only, middle image – My processing on right.

Seems to be a cellphone photograph. Subject is framed in the center of the image. The image appears to be grainy and is lacking contrast. Not so sure this represents a “New Normal”. I have seen panhandlers on the street wearing buffs before COVID. See the Digital Critique for example of contrast and notice how I was able to minimize the window reflection through adding a subtle vignette.

Image is compositionally sound and the cloud in the lower left corner helps the composition. We read and typically view things from left to right. The jets coming into the frame and rising from the right adds a bit of tension. Not a bad thing…If anything the eye goes immediately to the jets and then moves in an upward left direction and them instantly back to the jets, thereby keeping the viewer engaged. I also understand flight direction is not something you can control.

 This is why titles are important; I’ve seen and photographed the Blue Angels, so I am not sure this is a “New Normal”, but as your title indicates, the occasion for which they are flying is. Image may have been processed better or at least differently to enhance the scene.

Focus is appropriate for this image. The soft focus at the bottom of the image leads the viewer up into the image and keeps them there. The yellow looks a little muddy (gray), and the portion of detail, and color at the bottom below the soft-focus petals reveals the low-key selection and processing. Compare the visual critique with the original. What do you think?

This image meets the challenge of low-key. Look close at the original and you will notice subtle color in the gradient between the cat and the low-key background. It seems the cat could have been processed a little better. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. Notice the difference? Is it an improvement?

The image meets the challenge of low-key. This photograph also shares the fascination of a child. One can’t help but smile when looking at the young man’s face as he stares in wonderment at what his father is doing. For this judge; the important part of the image is the look on the child’s face. Compare the side-by-side of the visual critique. Notice how I opened up the boy a little and cropped the image to eliminate the unnecessary elements of the image, including cropping out part of the balloon? What do you think? Did it strengthen the father and son connection?

The image meets the challenge of low-key. This was a challenging photograph due to the amount of light. It is usually better to expose a photo so there are not any blown out parts in the image. Exposing to include color in the fire would have been easy to do, the challenge would have been to have enough light for the fire lady. Compare the side-by-side visual critique for an example of processing. Notice how a tighter crop also strengthened the image?

The photograph is well done but notice how you can see a shadow on the background behind the model’s head? Is the model’s hand necessary for the shot? Not for my aesthetic. The low-key statement could have been taken a step farther through processing. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. What do you think?

This image is well done. The orchid looks good on a monitor but could be a little dark if the image was to be printed. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. What do you think? No points were deducted for this visual critique.

The photograph is well done but notice how you can see the background behind the model? Minimizing the white of the model’s eyes, by changing her angle of view could have strengthened the image. The low-key statement could have been taken a step farther through processing. Compare the side-by-side visual critique for processing and notice how the eyes were opened up a little so you can see the color of her eyes?

Compositionally strong and the color works well in a low-key photograph. Notice a little green in the background? The low-key statement could have been taken a step farther through processing. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. What do you think?

I think I’ve seen these in other challenges. This image demonstrates good use of light. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. Notice the slight, for lack of a better word, halo behind the marbles? They were eliminated on the visual critique and the marble colors were enhanced through contrast techniques.

Well composed, with a bright and airy exposure teetering on the edge of high key. See the side-by-side visual critique for a higher key version.

Good focus on this bright image. The model is well exposed for a bright image but this falls a little short of what is traditionally considered a high key image. The model’s position in the frame competes for attention with a detailed background on the left side of the image. See the side by side comparison. Notice when the background is gone the subject’s proximity to the right side of the frame is emphasized?

The choice of lighting reveals detail. The subject crowds the lower portion of the frame. Also, notice the yellow tones at the edge of the petal and lower left portion of the frame. The yellow areas and crowding the bottom could have been dealt with during processing. See the side by side comparison.

The image seems adequately composed for a still-life. Not sure the green glass bottle was the best choice for this challenge. The grungy antique feel of the bottle feels inconsistent with the bright airy feel of a high key image. Look close at the bougainvillea bloom; notice the color gradient inconsistencies? Notice the lost detail in the brighter magenta portions of the petals? This can happen when the color saturation is boosted too much. Compare the side-by-side visual critique for processing ideas.

See the side by side comparison. Harley’s face had some lost detail in the highlights. This was corrected in processing. Also, notice the visual critique has added contrast.

The image has a good composition but looks tonally flat (gray). While it is a bright image, it isn’t what would be traditionally considered high key. Compare the side by side edit. Did the high key processing and contrast strengthen the image?

Interesting pose. Notice the element in the upper left corner? It is inconsistent with the rest of the image and isn’t necessary for the composition. This image is bright but it falls a little short of what is traditionally considered high key. The side by side comparison is a crop of the upper left area. Look around Molly’s nose and on the highlight edges. Do you see the fringing? This happens with some lenses but can be removed in Lightroom or Adobe Camera RAW. The image on the right has it removed. You may need to zoom in to see it.

Well composed and exposed. The panoramic orientation is appropriate. See the side by side (over/under for your image) and notice how I was able to take the sky to another level of high key.

One of the challenges to photographing something white is to make it white, and not gray while maintaining detail. Compare the side by side images. Does the processed image on the right express high key more than your version on the left?

Very nice capture of a Roseate in flight. See the side by side comparison. Your version has a gray sky with some tonality changes. The high key statement could have been refined through processing.

Great idea and concept that is well composed. The exposure is well done but falls short of high key. See the side by side comparison. Notice how your background is gray with shadows from some of the shells. There is also an odd shape (anomaly) at the lower right edge of the frame.

Well composed and, airy and ethereal image. Light color hair can be a challenge to keep detail and not blowout when creating a high key image. See the side by side comparison and look for the bright areas where I tried to repair the blown out areas and add some detail. Did it improve the image? Does it even matter for this image.

Good use of bokeh as a background for the spiral. This image is reminiscent of abstract with a hint of still life. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. The image seemed a little flat. Did the touch of processing for pop and contrast help the expression?

The image has a neon feel. The photograph wants to have a flowing feel, but this “feel” is broken up by the gaps between the bright portions of the lines. I am not sure how well this image expresses bokeh. The dashed lines do not have a feeling of out-of-focus as intended for bokeh, and the blue background seems to be only a background that does not present as out-of-focus. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. While it may not be what the photographer intended; does the edited version have a more pleasing visual aesthetic (bokeh) feel than the original?

Great bokeh. While the competition challenge was bokeh, the image is still judged on the whole of its components. Compositionally the visual weight (eye and head) of the subject is a little to the left side of the frame making the image feel out of balance and the image background seems a little bright while the subject seems underexposed. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. Keep in mind this was done on a lo-res jpeg. Did the change in composition and processing strengthen the image?

Good bokeh. Image is compositionally sound. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. The original seems a little flat and washed out. Did the processing for richness and contrast make a difference?

Good bokeh on the points of lights. While the competition challenge was bokeh, the image is still judged on the whole of its components. The glass is off-center (more to the right side of the frame) and seems a little bright. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. Did the processing strengthen the idea? Maybe added a little drama?

Colorful and well composed image. The hand adds interest to the photograph. The lights just look out of focus. That is of course blur but when thinking of bokeh, you think of the quality of the blurred portion of the image. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. Did more blur improve the idea?

Good bokeh on the points of light. The subject is composed to the left and notice the support at the bottom of the sculpture’s foot. The support is a distraction at the edge of the frame. While the competition challenge was bokeh, the image is still judged on the whole of its components. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. Did removing the distraction at the bottom of the frame and changing the composition help the image?

The points of light in the background are out-of-focus, but the visual aesthetic of the blur could be improved. Also, notice the decanter is off the center to the right. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. Did the change in bokeh and composition improve the shot?

Good bokeh on the points of light. While the competition challenge was bokeh, the image is still judged on the whole of its components. Great bokeh with an uninteresting subject doesn’t make for a great image. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. Did removing the points of light at the upper-left edge of the frame and opening up (brightening) the cup improve the shot?

Good bokeh on the points of light. While the competition challenge was bokeh, the image is still judged on the whole of its components. Great bokeh with an uninteresting subject doesn’t make for a great image. Notice the figure is slightly off-center and a little dark. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. Did a tighter crop to center the figure and opening up (brightening) the figure improve the shot?

Is a glass spiral with an out-of-focus background enough for this challenge? Maybe not as shot. Compositionally, the spiral is composed closer to the left side of the frame giving the shot an out of balance feel. The image also has a gritty or grainy feel which could be considered in conflict with bokeh. Compare the side-by-side visual critique and look at the difference in the background bokeh. Which one has a more pleasing visual aesthetic?

Good bokeh for the background. Compositionally the image could be refined, and the image is a little flat and washed out. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. Did the crop, and processing for color and contrast improve the image? Does the tighter crop help emphasize the hummingbird?

The background is out of focus, but it is not what could be considered good bokeh. The image also looks bright with some overexposed areas. Look at the top of the bill. Looks like it was shot during midday (a little backlit) when the lighting is at its worse. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. I processed for color and contrast, cleaned up the blown out areas, and enhanced the bokeh. What do you think?

Great use of bokeh with the points of light for making magic. Check out the side-by-side visual critique. Not a critique, I simply played around and added to your “Magic”.

Great bokeh and the color of the background support and compliment this simply stated subject. My only comment is on the processing. The image seems a little bright and flat, but not overexposed. This could have been intentional and processed to a personal aesthetic. I only mention it as something to think and talk about with others. The other issue is the stem of the flower leading the viewer off out of the frame. I darkened it a little to try and keep the viewer in the frame. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. Did the processing and trying to subdue the stem help?

(Deja-vu from the Orchid) Great bokeh and the color of the background support and compliments this simply stated subject. My only comment is on the processing (no points were deducted). The image seems a little bright, but not overexposed. This could have been intentional and processed to a personal aesthetic. I only mention it as something to think and talk about with others. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. I simply darkened the image using a layer mask and multiply blend mode. Did the processing add anything to the image?

The color red begs to be photographed. The challenge is to photograph and process red in such a way to not lose detail with saturation. The bokeh is ok, but it doesn’t seem to support the flower well. The bokeh in the original feels busy and competes for attention with the flower instead of supporting/complementing it. There are also some distracting elements at the bottom of the flower. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. Did the crop for composition and enhancing the bokeh change the feel?

The bokeh is appropriate as a background for the bird. Normally you would want the bird or animal flying into the frame. That rule was effectively broken in this shot by placing the shrub in the lower-left corner causing the viewer to stay in the frame by going back and forth between the bird and the shrub. Compare the side-by-side visual critique for a processing idea to add depth and contrast. What do you think?

The background is out of focus, but the quality of the bokeh could have been improved. Also notice how bright the image, and more specifically the background is. The viewer's eye will always go to the brightest part of an image. The squirrel is small in the frame when it should dominate the frame. It is the subject after all. Bokeh is the digital challenge and this shot is used to support the subject. The image also feels a little bright. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. Does the crop and processing for color, tonality, and contrast improve the image? Look close and you will notice I removed a poorly place stick.

The background is out of focus, but the quality of the bokeh is lacking. While bokeh can be subjective, good bokeh softens or smooths edges rendering them unidentifiable. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. That background may not have been the best for the subject.

The bokeh is adequate…the contrasting tonalities (greens to yellows) may not have been the best as a background to the purple, and to emphasize the floating flower. This may have been a candidate for a lo-key shot. The image seems overexposed with the bright background and the white areas with no detail in the flower. Compare the side-by-side visual critique for an idea of what I am trying to express.

Good bokeh…the use of bokeh helps this shot. It would not feel the same if the background had detail. The composition is appropriate. The image feels a little flat and washed out. Compare the side-by-side visual critique. Did the processing for contrast and color help the image and emphasize the title of “Yellow Eyes”?