If you don't see the severe over-sharpening evidence in this shot, then
you're beyond hope.  I'll leave this to others, as anyone with an eyeball
will agree that the sharpening in this photo is extreme...whether the result
of an over-zealous in-camera setting, or after-the-fact D-Mac job.  There
are blobs, halos and dots all over this photo.  Individual hair detail is
lost in the swamp of crystalized-looking stuff.  Sort of looks like a water
color painting viewed through a screen door, and painted with a frayed
brush.

But whatever floats your boat...

Hey D-Mac, you forgot to tell him that you were just baiting him by
posting another crappy photo.  I mean, you WERE baiting him, right D-
Mac?
I mean, nobody would seriously expect anything but harsh critque from
this mess.
http://www.annika1980.com/D-Macs/cripes.png

Gee, no wonder you named that pic "cripes.png."
As in, "Cripes!  What did you do to that pic?"

BTW, just for reference purposes here is a similar pic showing a cat's
eyes that don't look crystallized and fur that doesn't resemble
jumbled barbed wire.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/13184171/original

I played around with it for a few minutes in Photoshop to see if I
could duplicate the look of your pic. With a lot of over-sharpening
and some saturation adjustments, not to mention some poor re-sizing
techniques, I came pretty close.
But then I looked at the pic and yelled, "Cripes! What have I done?"

Here's a few more cat shots, sans the crystallized eyes effect:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/65359259
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/73009886
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/73587070

Who was referring to the glow from the pupil?  Not me.  I'm talking about
everything other than that.  Here's an enlargement from www.annika1980.com:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/75512024/original
(Bret didn't seem to mind if I borrowed a portion of this image for
reference purposes)
Now put your glasses on...put down the tequilla, and tell me this looks like
an accurate rendering of cat's fur...cat's iris...or a cat's nose flesh.  I
have yet to meet a kitty who is made out of crystalized clay.  :)

Are you serious?
This image is so severely over-manipulated to the point of looking
crystalized.

On Mar 10, 5:57 pm, "Richard Neilsen" <richardneil...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

Sorry, but I don't agree.  The cat's eyes look very strange, like they
have been heavily photoshopped or something to that nature.  As for
posting "crap" about D-Mac's pics, I have never given him negative
feedback on his work.

On Mar 11, 8:57 am, "Richard Neilsen" <richardneil...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

Hi, Richard, you big grown-up you..*  (O;

How did your post actually add to the discussion - do *you* like the
image?  Think it is good technically?  Care to add anything at all on-
topic?

Here's my comments.  I've tried to be fair and unbiased.  (O;  Feel
free to argue the points raised.

1. Subject is good and cropping is interesting, but suffers from the
distracting portion of pink tongue (?) at bottom - it should have been
included or excluded, not truncated.

2. The image quality suffers badly from some type of pixellation - the
effect is strange, almost like a 2-3 pixel crystallise filter has been
applied, and then it has been oversharpened.  The image is already
striking because of the subject, so additional effects will likely
look overdone and unnecessary, as this does, imo.  And of course when
you apply effects like these (or even if you are not particularly
careful with your sharpening regime) finely detailed fur/hair can
easily turn into a disaster, as shown here.  At a casual glance it
just looks like a crop that has become pixellated from being over-
enlarged, but of course with Doug's knowledge of enlargement and his
algorithms, that couldn't *possibly* be the problem (O;, so it must be
a deliberate artistic choice.  As such I disagree with it, but I don't
for a moment criticise others (like Richard) who may think otherwise.
It's a free country, so those who like the image are just as free to
add their comments, as those who don't.  Right, Richard?

3. The colours are oversaturated for my taste, again imo a sharp,
accurate rendition of the scene would have worked better.  There also
seems to be some posterisation, but it is difficult to tell what it
is, given the artefacts mentioned above.

Maybe with a little more (less?) work, Douglas could do this:
http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Mouse-in-a-Cat-s-Eyes-Posters_i1210937_.htm
and sell it as a poster..

*PS - have you had any takers in Mt Druitt, Rich?  (O;

I dont believe that the eyes have been manipulated in any way, I am just
saying that that is what a cats eyes would look like if a photo was taken
that close up with a flash, hense the way they reflect in the dark.

My other point is, why is everyone so negative against this guy?  I would be
inclined to think it is tall poppy syndrome myself.

And sorry Helen, I wasn't having a go at you, it is just where my post came
out.

I think this forum is full of try hard wanna bees, I posted a photo in this
forum once nad got nothing but angst for placing a picture in a non binary
forum, so maybe you should all just grow up, I understand and can live with
constructive critisism, but you guys are just outright mean.

Cat's eyes are incredibly reflective, so any form of on-axis lighting
will bounce right back at you & give you that effect. Use a flash gun
with the head turned towards a reflector (eg; next to a white wall,
drape, etc), or shoot outdoors on a bright, overcast day. On a DSLR
with a good low-noise sensor, you can turn off the flash & use room
lighting at ISO 800 or 1600.