Joel, it's a very nice duck, but it's a very common duck. I'm curious if the lighting in "Valley in Yellowstone" is natural. It looks overly cross processed to me.

Brant, the "Galactic Core" is nice, but I would have cleaned up the dotted 'airplane line' (or whatever it is). The foreground tree is too well-lit, so it doesn't really fit the rest of the scene. Unsure if that was just a nearby light, or an attempt at light painting. Both issues distracts from an otherwise nice photo.

Zach, nice tone range in "Forging a New Path", but it's just not an image I can see myself coming back to. Perhaps ideal for a metal-worker's workshop. The "Autumn Bloom" looks like the petals and stamen are over-exposed, while the rest of the image is very dark. It's like you did selective color, but selective exposure instead, and blew out any details in the subject. I would have zoomed closer to see if there was any detail in there, but the image isn't clickable. Contrast that to the dark side of the anvil... I don't care that it's pure black. I'm not sure if that's just something I'm willing to accept more readily in B&W, or the the loss of detail there is acceptable since it allows you more tonal range in the rest of the image, that the anvil is secondary, while the hammer is the focal point, or that it's possible for that to appear near pure black in reality too... but somehow the over-darkening is fine, while the overblown lighting on the flower, especially since it's the focal point, just doesn't feel right.

Kari, nice aurora, and lots of visible stars. You must be pretty remote to be able to get this detail. The tree line could be a bit more interesting, but otherwise good. Maybe I've just been spoiled by some other forum member's amazing aurora photos over lakes and mountains.

This week goes to Brant's "Mountain Sunset". The sunset just pops far more than Kari's aurora, and the layers of fogged out hills provide a more interesting ground level.