>>2621480This is not critique. It's observation.
You are also not thinking about the photos for what they are, or what their goal is.
I will agree that the processing in
>>2621338 is overboard, and that the clouds are about 40% too dark, and that the lack of saturation anywhere else in the image makes it look strange. But the car does "pop" quite a bit, which is obviously the goal. However, the plane of focus and the composition in the image, as well as the amount of "grungy detail" in the ground and background, contrasted against the smooth shiny lines of the car, will do an excellent job of popping the car out on their own, so the toning and coloring can be toned back some to make the image look a lot more believable.
>>2621340For this one, I feel like the light coming over the bushes is still quite green, compared against the purple of the car. I'd orange it up quite a bit. Also, I'd crop the photo in from the bottom right corner, to get rid of some of the foreground and extra bushes on the left. That dark shadow on the bottom right is drawing the eye, rather than repelling it, because it's so stark and drastic.
Also, the universe looks like that at any time of day. Taking a photo of a car like that with a wicked paint job at night is going to be crazy difficult, and unpleasant looking, as photos of cars at night are generally super reflective and use specular highlights to accentuate the form and lines of the car. Getting enough even light on the car at night to show off the color and detail of the paint job will kill the "night" mood anyway. Better to show it in good light with a complimentary color.
