[Hairnet1948]

I went for a Sunday drive last week. I took these 2 pics along the way. I had them enlarged to 16 X 20 and I am very pleased with them. Let me know what you think. I know you can see my shadow on the ground. I took that off by cloning it in Photoshop before printing.

[Dean]

The composition in the second shot is great, but would like to have seen a bit more punch.

[PhotoPlay]

Second image looks like a fantasy. Looks like I am looking forward for something on that tree but couldn't thought of anything. But I love the image. Superb!!!!

[EdMak]

Not a square pic lover, other one, agree with Dean, there is a lot of detail, and colour in there, not showing. Great Calendar. Ed.

[James Tate]

Two very well composed images. The first one is a great capture and definitely a, "You lookin' at me?"
I'd go with Dean on the second. It's a great scene but, at the moment, it's a photographic record of a particular place at a particular time. Maybe that's exactly what you were aiming for. A little bit of work to give it more Oomph might suggest something more to the viewer - like, "What's round that bend?"

[Don Schaeffer]

I really like the post processing. It gives the images a shine, a burnish which finishes them. I think it works better in the first image. You may have "burned" the center of the sky a little too much in the second image--there is a noticeable dark space.

[Hairnet1948]

Thank you all for your positive remarks. I love this forum, people here are so kind. Not like some folks on the ugly hedge hog forum. I sent these to Nations Photo Lab to be printed. They had a sale for $8 for 16 X 20 prints and they did some color correcting. BTW Don, they seemed to correct the dark spot and really gave the pic a lot of "Punch" Dean. It has gotten many compliments hanging in my beauty shop. Thanks again to you all for the nice things that you said.

[Wall-E]

The composition in the second shot is great, but would like to have seen a bit more punch.

I agree.
Maybe bump the saturation and contrast a little.

[MrB]

My preference is the second shot, but that is probably biased by the subject - I like seasonal shots like this autumnal scene.

I haven't searched for the next point anywhere else on ShutterTalk, so it might have been mentioned before. Large signatures (or visible "watermarks") on photos really detract and distract from the enjoyment of the images, in my opinion. If the concern is about others copying the work, then downsize to e.g. 900x600 pixels before posting - smaller images are less attractive (because of the lack of image information) for others to use. If posted full-size or large, anyone determined to steal the image will easily remove the signature in PhotoShop anyway.

[Wall-E]

Large signatures (or visible "watermarks") on photos really detract and distract from the enjoyment of the images, in my opinion. If the concern is about others copying the work, then downsize to e.g. 900x600 pixels before posting - smaller images are less attractive (because of the lack of image information) for others to use. If posted full-size or large, anyone determined to steal the image will easily remove the signature in PhotoShop anyway.

And I totally disagree.

Posting a small file, denies us the ability to look at the full size image, and, depending on the software used, strips the exif data.

I, myself, don't see a problem with subdued signatures.
But then, I sell my work.