Hello everybody.

I am submitting this photo to the critics because I want to know what I can improve.
I submitted it to curation (abstract) and the result is "unpublished". Maybe I went about it too quickly? I posted it in 2000px on the longest edge because there is a lot of details. But i've learned that photos submitted to curations are automatically scaled down to 1000px. So I think this

size prevented seeing the details and maybe this photograph was likened to a big tagada strawberry? I'm not sure...Its just my feeling when i see the results.

It's a crystalized stone. The particularity of this stone is that there are red cores inside of each crystal cluster with beautiful translucent textures. Would it be better to put this photo vertically or other things to do?
This photo is composed of 89 pictures merged together. For the scale i honestly dont remember if its 2:1 or 4:1. Always F8 at low iso with continous light and a 90mm macro lens.
PS for post traitment.

A big thanks for your help.

Best regards
Emmanuel VERZURA

Emmanuel Hi May I jump right in - love the overall rose colours and the simple composition. This is my take on your fine image I've gone for the power of colour and texure as that's how I see this colour wonder. Nik Tools Tonal conest used to add contrast and colour all in one go - Last I used the dodge tool with Opacity set at 18% and worked the highlights and light areas to try and put some depth and get that 3D look. - Thank you for sharing..

Emmanuel,

I like the increased contrast in Daniel's edit above.  I think it's given the image a lot more impact.  My first thought was 'Journey to the Centre of the Earth', because this seems like something you'd see deep underground in a cave.  Your title, 'Dangerous Desire'  will intrigue viewers. 

When I wrote about your last photo - 'Imaginary Landscape' I suggested that one step in editing abstract images can be flipping them left-to-right and also upside down.  There are 8 different possibilities, and sometimes one of them will stand out from the rest.  Often you go back to the original, but it's still interesting to see how the composition changes like that.

I use this technique often, so I've made a Photoshop 'Action' that produces the 8 variations with one click.  For this photo, one of the vertical frames appealed, so I've attached it here.  Like Daniel, I boosted the contrast.  I used the Texture, Clarity, and DeHaze sliders in Photoshop's  'Filter>Camera Raw Filter>Basic to do most of that, and then adjusted Levels a bit too.   

As the photographer it's best that you compose and edit with the theme of the photo in mind.  You know best what you want it to say to viewers.  What we do here in Critique  is to offer ideas to be considered, and possibly tried. 

There's another world to explore when you get really close with a macro lens.  You seem to have mastered the technique.  As you've noticed, the photos in 'Member Curation' are re-sized to just 1000 pixels wide.  The files are also compressed to just a few hundred kilobytes.  That doesn't help photos that are best appreciated for their image quality.   I could be wrong, but I think that re-sizing is done so that photos will load quickly and look OK on phones and tablets.

. . . . Steven, senior critic

Thank you very much for your help, my photo actually lacked pep. I also tried in all directions but not by reversing the photo. The proposed vertical orientation is actually even better. I reworked the photo but I find that the light is not yet homogeneous enough. The crevices are still a little too dark and the brightness on the upper half is still low I find. But its much better. Maybe i will send it to curation directly in 1000px to avoid compression problem?

Emmanuel,

In the FAQ it's suggested that members upload full resolution files.  I think this is important if you're selling the photos here.  If not, then a smaller size is probably OK.  Personally, I think it's better to resize your own rather than rely on the website to do it.  In 'Member Curation', photos are displayed at 1000 pixels wide, but in other sections they are shown larger.  In the Gallery, they are displayed at 2500 pixels wide.  In Critique we get to see them at 2000 pixels. 

When I upload photos here, because I'm not selling, I usually resize to 2500 pixels.  Maybe other members can offer opinions on this? 

. . . . Steven

Oh...I usualy send to curation in 2000px... But if it need to be at 2500px to be published all curations will be automatically negative??

Emmanuel

Emmanuel, 

I don't think the file size affects how a photo is judged.  They wouldn't be rejected for being small - unless they are so small that the Head Curators are unable to judge the image quality.

If you upload full resolution files, they are carefully protected from being downloaded.  I think the Head Curators may be able to see them full size - I don't know for sure.  For photos such as your macro landscapes where image quality is very important,  it might be better to upload them in full resolution and let the website re-size them for the various sections where they will be displayed. 

I'm sorry I don't have precise answers for this. 

Steven

Steven, my photo is published ( imaginary landscape) ! Thanks again for your help..

Congratulations, Emmanuel, for that honour!   Your careful craftsmanship was rewarded.