>>6172081I wouldn't let feedback discourage you but critique is how one learns so here goes:
What this Anon
>>6172041 said is spot on
When you first start playing with software you see a range of shit you can do and it's easy to go overboard and you wind up with making pointless edits just because its cool that you can do a certain thing. The lens flare is a textbook example. I remember talking graphic design in high school and people were pointlessly adding lens flares to shit just because they could, or because they thought it was neat but it adds nothing to the picture. In fact, it takes away from it because now we can't see what's supposed to be happening.
It would be loads better if it were just the figures against a blue piece of poster board which is how many toy photographers (including myself) start out shooting. Take this Anon for example
>>6170893Whether its color correction or to remove a stand you should always have a purpose when editing. I've been known to edit a bit but as I mentioned in
>>6171849 its for a reason.
Look at this
>>6171786 I'd like to think that even without the color fading and stand removal its still a decent pose.
Look at pic related. When I first started taking toy pics specifically for toy photography I used to use a lomography approximation app called Hipstamatic just because I thought it looked cool. I'd take loads of these heavily filtered pics but they weren't any good regardless of whether there was any editing done or not.
In short, work on substance over style. There's no app that'll make up for a bad picture.
The best way to improve is to focus more on learning basic art and photography principals; composition, framing, color theory, lighting, and basic anatomy. As mentioned in another thread check out some YouTube videos on cinematography. I recommend Every Frame a Painting:
https://www.youtube.com/user/everyframeapainting/videos 