Second horizontal crop posted

.

Nice shot. It's the moments when we're off stage and unawares that are always the most interesting (and probably truer than we would like them to be).

Thank you, Jack. I sort of remember swinging my camera up at the last moment to get this shot. I was kind of surprised that anything came out of it. 

How is it that this version, which looks so much better printed out than the previous version, gets much worse ratings? Perhaps I made this picture lighter than I should have so that it would print out well on the printer I use. Or perhaps the picture is just as mediocre (not even!) as its ratings would suggest. Something else to ponder . . . 

I think this one looks much better on screen as well. Why it got lower ratings than the other is most likely pure happenstance, just who came along to rate and what their given mood was. Says nothing about your photos. Nothing at all. There is, indeed, a loveliness about this and, for me, what makes it is the glance of the woman in the background whose face is so appropriately "disturbed" by the foreground frond. There's a kind of stayed symmetry with the fronds, her being centered, the pillars and the two flags and it all creates a stage-like feel offset by a very natural feeling of actual life.

Ok Martin, let me justify my "3" although i thought it was so obvious (especially when seen large).
- First level, the entry to the photo, is blurred (the flowers and the leaves). Personally i feel "uninvited" to a photo when it opens up like this.
- The skin's processing made it look like plastic, totally unnatural.
- The left overs from the bad processing on the woman's (with the white shirt) head
- The unsuccessful applied blurring/softening of the image. The top of the blurred hair is in front from the shoulders, yet the shoulders remain in the focus range, tips of the hair are clear etc etc.
I agree with both Jack and Fred about the warm eye look by you need to support, not to destroy this element.
Keep up.

Ps. My vote to the previous version. A "honest" image, full with noise but genuine. Now it's obvious to me, and verifies my rate. In your effort to get rid of the noise you have "destroyed" a decent image.

It does look a little plasticy, doesn't it? Maybe something in between the "original" version and this one. 

Anyway, thank you, Jack and Fred, for your nice, and thoughtful, comments (and Michail for your critical, but thoughtful, comments). All I can say for sure is that at some point there will probably be another version (more likely, at least several more, if the past is any guide).