Good points all!
... yes, anyone who denies the power of software as a tool to improve their digital (even print) photography is basically avoiding the modern age. As we've all seen, anyone can buy a good camera and take decent images. However, you really see the separation of skills when it comes to the attention placed on the final product, enhancement wise, and also the techniques used to acheive the result.
For instance, hands down, Daniel's image was the best this last week, in my opinion. It got my vote, but I will say that it had a couple of things that I wouldn't have let slide, had it been mine.
No offense to a great image, but let's learn together ...
1) The first thing I would have done would have been to remove the lint. Not that lint isn't normal in real life, but these photos are competitive entries, so it's all about total performance in this case. When you go head-to-head with another equally compelling shot, lint may be enough to cost you a win. So, the point would be "attention to detail" at all costs!
2) The winning image was 161K in file size, which needs serious attention. Because I'm in the business, I may be more critical of this point that most, but the average internet connection value remains at just under 26.6, so you guys need to stay focused on the load times. 161k translates to 40-50 seconds on the average connection, which will get it waved "bye-bye" to out here if you're not careful. Stay focused on this point when you finalize your work and learn how to compress for speed without overcooking the core image too much. That's how you separate your work from the average attempt, so it's worth learning about, for sure.
Here's what I mean ...
Before ...
After ... (60.1K and cleaned up - acceptable compression effects, 60K is my target on the largest of image files)
Sorry I can't devote more time in here to help you men, but we're going 100 miles per hour over here. If anyone needs help though, I'm here, so e-mail me if so ...
Have fun ...
Alex