Using a teleconverter reduces the effectiveness of the aperture. With a 1.4 teleconverter, f/2.8 becomes the equivalent of f/4 and a 2X teleconverter loses another stop on top of that. Plus there's a loss of image quality.

Tried to make good use of the available darkness .
.

(Download)

A thought-provoking discussion. I'd just like to mention one point that hasn't been raised so far. There can be a contrast between ordinary and different. Usually if something (or somebody) is different, it (or they) will stand out and be noticed. I haven't any examples of that because I don't do street photography or even people photography but I can think of many examples I've seen in the past where it was the different thing or person that became the obvious main subject of a photo. Our attention is automatically drawn to what's different and it can be the starting point of any storytelling that's being told by an image.

As Linda said, that's an interesting statement, but I have my own take on it. Yes, increasing contrast does increase the perceived sharpness, but I believe that sharpness isn't the determining factor. I believe that vividness is what determines how we perceive a scene and sharpness is just one aspect of vividness. Increased sharpness leads to increased vividness (and the inverse is also true - increased vividness can create an impression of increased sharpness). Contrast is also an aspect of vividness where increasing contrast increases vividness.

The point I'm making is that if you make sharpness an end in itself you're missing the point. Sharpness is relevant only insofar as it enhances vividness. And vividness is something that we may or may not want more of. In fact ofttimes we want less. But in either case vividness is the determining factor and sharpness is just one aspect of vividness. So is tonal contrast. And colour contrast. And textural contrast etc etc.

Good job on the exposure. The petals all stand out.

A stunning view.

First I approach it head on, then I try some sideways movements to see how that works out.

I get the impression that most of the art world suffers from that lack of differentiation in varying degrees. We get similar problems from the way that obscurity is often misused.

The eye tends to go where the sharpness is. In your shot there's more soft ripple than sharp ripple and the most eye-catching part is the metalwork above the gutter. All of that makes it difficult to discern what the intended subject is.

#6.

The basics of capture haven't changed. Concentrate on that and worry about the bells and whistles later.

You were criticising people who photograph unoriginal subjects and you likened that practice to embalming. I defended those people and that practice. There's much more that could have been said.

My view.
.

(Download)

The image I'm providing this week is derived from a raw file I sourced (legitimately) from the internet. Below is the original raw file plus a JPG and TIFF version.

Anything goes as far as editing. Add, manipulate, twist, crop, or create a fine piece of art. Please show us your editing that might improve the picture OR POSSIBLY create a piece of art using some of the latest software actions to create different effects. ANYTHING IS ACCEPTABLE. If you use some special software or action please let us know the software you used.

When you are finished, post your edit in this thread. Edits will be accepted until 9 pm Eastern time on Thursday. No edits will be accepted after that time, voting is done Thursday 9:00PM - Sunday 9:00PM. Voting will be for the one image voters like best.

Thank you for your efforts and participation.

Original NEF
Attached file:
(Download)

TIFF

(Download)

JPG

(Download)

The hat is too bright. Where shadows are concerned you can get some cues from the other stuff on the table like the spectacles case. Having shadows but getting them slightly wrong is better than not having any where there should be shadows.