This test image isn't as saturated as yours and the blues
were harder to control (notice the sky and the blue tiles
under the eaves of the building for example). But aside
from that, what's the advantage of lab?

Tell me more about lab, eartho. Is this some software that
you have written? A plug-in for Photoshop? Will you release
the source code (for us Linux/Gimp users) to port?

Attached Link: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0109/01091102kodakprobackplus.asp

Imagine... A 16 megapixel Arca Swiss... And at $22,000 (US,
for the back alone) it's a bargain at HALF the price!... (NOT!) :-)

I get the sense that the building is slowly being sucked into the forest, eventually to disappear and never be seen again. Makes me want to have a closer look.

While this portrait is one of the most likable that I've
seen in a very long time, I must confess that I agree
with Slynky's view on the composition. Only a UFO
could have provided the balance and sense of scale needed
by this adorable portrait. But not just any UFO. I
think the best type of UFO for this scene would've been the
cigar-shaped variety, metalic in color but not chromed.
Something closer to buffed aluminum or brushed stainless
steel. Flashing lights would be right out for this type
of scene.

Better luck next time!

P.S. That's a perfectly precious image of a happy kid.
Reminds me of my most excellent niece when she was that age.

Wwwwow!

And you simply laid these shells on your scanner and scanned them directly? They're fantastic images. I doubt any better could have been done with a camera.

Yeah, the blurring around the corner of your eyebrow. More
Depth Of Field (done with a smaller aperture opening - i.e.
larger f-number) will cause all of your features to be in
focus at once... if that's what you want.

Now you know the distortion you get when a dog stuffs his
nose into the lens of a camera to sniff it? The dog's nose
seems disproportionately large. You can create the opposite
effect by moving back from a subject and using a telephoto
lens to keep the frame full. This is often done in portraits
to make a person's nose seem smaller. The effect is to
flatten out features. You can use that technique, if
that's what you want as well.

I stress the "if"'s because I don't want to steal your
objective in creating that image from you. The image should
be what you want it to be, not what I want it to be, so
these are just suggestions.

Wow, gunsan! I've seen lots of mobiles and other dangly
things made with old CD's, but that one is quite original!
It looks almost like a mathmatical visualization of some
sort. Very nice!

I'd say that the light by the bridge of your nose is too bright, and makes your face in that area look like a cut-out. The DOF seems a little shallow, too. Try bumping up your f-stop, or move the camera back and use a telephoto lens. That'll tend to give your features a little less depth.

Concerning picture #1: I'll bet they throb for a while after you cut them open. They'd better at nearly $5 a pound! Concerning picture #3: What, no tassled paisties?!

I AM holding that bullet rather daintily, aren't I..
GREAT!! Now you've got me wondering!

Funny? Moi? :-)

Rork, it's true that you'd have to calculate what the
shutter speed of the spinning disk would be, and then
compensate with the aperture setting for good exposure,
but the advantage over a high-speed strobe light is that
this thing can be used in daylight or other, more pleasent
looking lighting, than single-source flash light.

Slynky, you'd never catch me doing something like
that. Not without a set of tassled pasties!

The bestest baby picture I ever saw was one of a baby
looking out from a pile of dried leaves. You could only
see it's face. Your picture #1 reminded me of that very
much. Very nice!