Tim 1: Looks like a Dpreview studio shot.
Tim 2: Focus is a the back of the scene.
Tim 3: Very washed-out looking.
Savage 1: Ok, should have dulled down the bright flash, produced a
bright highlight. Driver needs to take q-tip to the left-over polish
around the emblem.
Savage 2: Nice, smooth-looking, somewhat abstract.
Savage 3: Ok, I detect the slightest hint of motion-blur.
Bowser 1: I like it. Itís almost orthographic in nature.
Bowser 2; Interesting, like a lake taken from high altitude.
Bowser 3: Lighting a bit harsh, but it does convey the ďmetalicityĒ
of the object. I think Iíd have cropped out the stand a bit.
Sid 1: Not bad. Reasonable 3D representation. I might have made the
top and bottom defocused hole areas more symmetrical to one another,
the top one is partially cut-off.
Sid 2: Pretty good, but conventional. The interesting part are the
stamens. Iíd have closed in a bit on them, if the lens permitted.
Sid 3: Conventional, but nice. Petals have a bluish tinge, likely
from the sky.
FrankEss 1: I donít know about this one. Itís interesting to have
defocused the bee and focused the ant. Image shows typical
shortcomings of P&Sís, harsh contrast. Itís ok.
FrankEss 2: Only problem with the shot is that the dimmer areas
should have been made dimmer still. Raised shadows from a P&S look
gritty and blotchy and ugly.
FrankEss 3: Eh. Iíd have taken the dark areas full-black. There are
DanPetre1: I like it, despite the PSíd speed emphasis. Maybe cut a
strip off the sky.
Bobflint 1: That is a neat shot! Like a race, or a family outing!
Bobflint 2: Kind of conventional.
Bobflint 3: Pretty good. Whites are nicely separated. Always liked
the D90ís image quality.
AndrewReilly 1: Itís a pretty good shot, but Iíd have used f16 to
keep the trunk more in-focus.
AndrewReilly 2: Good shot. Needs more colour.
AndrewReilly 3: Again, pretty decent, minor red edge on the wire is a
bit distracting. Might want to clone out the residual dust spots on
MacroMG: Nice-looking flower shot, good colour, crop out the
distraction at the top.
MGCraneflower: Ok shot, a shallow DOF would have helped here, but not
possible with a P&S.
MG ladybugs: Nice enough shot, but needs a tad more colour and
contrast. An interesting approach might have been a side shot (they
are curving around the trunk of the tree).
Chemiker old1: Good shot of a black butterfly. A little faded
looking. Cut off a bit of the tail.
Chemiker 2: Not bad. Elimination of the background is ok, though I
might have used a narrow light source hitting the gems.
MarthaCoe 1: Ok close-up, except for the blurred, distracting stem in
MarthaCoe 2: A nice, symmetric close-up. The unfurled inner petals
make it a bit more interesting than the usual.
MarthaCoe 3: I like the shot, but some repositioning could have
avoided the blurred object on the bottom left.
PeterNewmanDahlia: Good colour, pizzazz, but itís not quite sharp.
PeterNewmanOrchid: I like this shot. Fanatics might have used a lens
brush to remove the tiny black specs from the top of the flower, but
otherwise, itís impressive.
PeterNewmanDahlia145: Image is too small here, increasing size would
increase perception of depth.
AlanBrown3: Honestly? Boring!!!
AlanBrown1: Pretty good spider shot, a real macro for a change. Be
nice if the contrast had been controllable, but sometimes itís hard to
control lighting in such a situation. F16 with a ring flash would be
a good way to get this kind of thing.
AlanBrown2: This is an interesting shot. Good texture, isolated
focus works and I wonder what made the scratch marks on the fungus??!
TonyCooperIímavailable: Probably going for a high-key look? Itís
almost self-luminous, Iíd have toned down the edginess.
TonyCooperJustaprettyface: Very good shot of the creature.
TonyCooperRoseinbloom: Nice-looking shot, interesting texturing