Lucky Strike
by bgslaw

Comment:
Interesting lightning shapes, but the sky is overexposed for my taste and the buildings seem a bit softer than they should be.

Begonia
by cyan

Comment:
Good composition and subject, and the sharpness is pretty good, but the murky grey-green background is yuck. Increase the contrast to make the background darker - black or close to it - and make the plant just a little brighter, and you'll find the image has a lot more impact.

Sleeping Beauty (an Angel in the night)
by Michaelsink

Comment:
Interesting idea, but the closeness and the short focal length has overemphasised your model's arm - particularly her upper arm - in a way that is not at all flattering. The blue lighting also highlights skin blemishes and tonal variations in a pretty unflattering way. I think this would be improved by backing off, and then using a longer focal length to keep your model dominant in the frame, but without the perspective distortions. Also a bit more movement, softening or a different lighting colour may help - this image doesn't, in my mind, do your model justice.

Infrared Flame
by chimericvisions

Comment:
Nothing in this image appears sharp, but at the same time it doesn't look like it was deliberately shot to be soft. The silhouettes of the logs aren't particularly interesting, and there is very obvious colour banding in the highlight areas throughout the top half of the image. Removing colour is good if it allows you to concetrate on tonal relationships, pattern, shape or texture - but in this case, the image doesn't really have any of those. Sorry.

City on Fire
by javakills

Comment:
This is way too overexposed; the light flareouts are painful rather than pleasing, and the light grey featureless sky does nothing. A long exposure could work here, but you need a much smaller aperture to ensure less light gets in - try underexposing by half a stop or so. Also, cropt out a lot of the sky because it adds nothing (unless you get some features in it).

30 seconds of IKEA sunrise
by Haukur Jo

Comment:
Sorry, this does nothing for me, even as an abstract. The flared light and blown highlights at the right dominate the photo, nothing is sharp but the out-of-focus aspect doesn't look deliberate, there are lots of messy reflections or artifacts, particularly on the left object.

red skies at night
by Rikki

Comment:
Interesting idea, but I think you've manipulated it too much. I can see banding in the sky colours, particularly toward the top left corner. The red in the centre of the frame is a bit too overpowering.

1, West India Quay
by redmoon

Comment:
This feels overexposed to me - the bright lights at the bottom flaring too much, and the sky feels too bright-orange, a bit off-putting. It could be improved if you were able to find an angle that included the building (or most of it) but excluded the cranes.

MG at Night
by EricMGB1974

Comment:
Interesting idea, but all the wiggly lines - particularly the ones in forefround on the car tire and door, but also the cumulative impact of all of them together - become way too distracting and ruin what could otherwise have been a pleasing image.

It's in the P-I
by Hawk5000

Comment:
Sorry, this doesn't do much for me. The highlights are too blown out with the shadows too dark, and there composition is pretty plan. Looks like a 30-second grab shot.