MIKE GALLAGHER Loc: New Zealand

Chuck_893 - as soon as I saw the photo I found the outline of the top of the petal to the left disturbed by the bright fuzzy bit of background so I did a quick cloning job on it. On inspection the petal looks a bit irregular but so does the one on the right.
There's another one against the lower vertical petal, on the left, but that one doesn't intrude the same. It could, perhaps, be reduced in brightness but isn't that getting unnecessarily picky?
Apart from that I think it's a photo that can stand on its own merit. Not necessarily the one you'd try to make an exhibition picture of but...

IRIS - background distraction removed

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Ah! As Oracle Jones said, "NOW ah see it!" I had to go back to the original and toggle between them! Honestly, if I'd made the picture I doubt that I'd have seen it. Sometimes I'm kinda uncritical, other times way too much. :shock: But I continue to agree that Macromad's picture was never "bad" to begin with, with the sole exception—maaaaaybe—of there being a lot of "dead air" above the iris, and as it turned out Macromad designed it as an exercise to find out whether he'd just get unnecessarily or even unfairly ripped. I don't think he did, but I'm doing another post to address some of the, errm, other issues…? :-D

(And I just read back and discovered that Macromad saw it, too, and mentioned it in his last post. :oops: )

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

"…this forum isn't very old and I see way to much of people making criticisms based on what they would like to see - not on the reality of the capture and what the original artist saw and can achieve."
"I hope that in future those who started this branch will take the time to put more effort into their comments otherwise we would be as well to stay with the already established format."

What I suspect is growing pains. This brand new forum is not even a week old, is it? The stated point of the thing is, if you post here, the presumption is that you want a critique, wouldn't post if you did not want a critique, and by that token if your viewer hates it s/he must say why, if s/he loves it s/he must say why, if s/he thinks something could be better, say what, and how. That's as opposed to the regular gallery where folks have to ask for a critique, and often all they'll get anyway is a back-whacking "nice shot good job great color I love the ducks or whatever I can barely see across the tilted pond" &c &c. :? Lovely, and thoroughly unhelpful.

The downside of this new format may be—may be—that a few folks coming to this section may believe they are expected to criticize in one of the less pleasant meanings of the word—to find something, anything, that they think is "wrong" and go after it, hammer and tongs. If that's happening, I think that's a misinterpretation of the word, and of the intent of the new section. "Critique" is as easily positive as negative, or even neutral. It's a critical evaluation, which the section and its rules require. If you post, you expect to be critiqued (which is not necessarily the same as being criticized). If you critique, you are expected to be specific: "I hate it because it sux" will not fly. You must say why it sux, but you must also say why it soars, all the while bearing strongly in mind that all criticism is subjective. Maybe you're right—maybe you're wrong.

My own approach is somewhat cowardly: if it really, really sux I just close the door as quietly as possible and leave. But if it soars I want to say so, and why. Where I think I can help, I will. That is why I am pretty enthusiastic about this experiment: I feel that I can do some actual good over here. At least I hope so. :thumbup: