I understand what you are saying however, I do not feel as though there is a problem with image quality here.

There are some flowers that just do not possess a lot of detail in the petals and on a personal note, I do not always

like floral images that are so sharp they appear to be nothing more than a dried out potato chip. I have discovered

a little softness combined with the proper exposure, color replication and composition are attributes that profoundly contribute to Image Quality.

In this hobby/discipline, it all comes down to what the shooter finds to be most rewarding.

Thanks again,

Tony :)))

I like the image overall, nice pose, pretty model. I like the shallow depth of field in it. The saturation level is a bit much for my tastes, the red channel looks pretty blown out. The noise level is interesting, but overall a bit too much for my tastes as well. Curious what camera/ISO/Shutter you used. You say natural light so maybe wide open for the depth of field, high ISO for low light, handheld? (slightly out of focus on the eyes or just real high ISO? Guessing real high ISO). Anyway, thanks for sharing.

What were the percentages it returned on those " human pics"... Ie 60-40%. 49-51% , I was looking to see if I could find a tool in case I was wrong. This one returned 0.82% human... so less than a percent.

Sicko's are making AI generated child porn, Law Enforcement has decided that it is still crime. I don't get child porn myself... but I can't wrap my head around who specifically is the victim if it is fake... I can understand the fact that that age group is adversely impacted - even if they are fakes... people would doctor real images, or law enforcement would have to prove they aren't real- and it creates a market-so I guess that is why. ...

Funny that fake nudes I think protect people who have been hacked or whatever, as they can say they are fake, and who could tell? .