I think what was being said here was not that it was the photographer who was specifically focussing on the rear of the eye 'assembly' - but rather that when the photographer tries to focus on the front surface of the eye the focus point ends up in fact at the back of the eye (MattyH's Macula & Folvia) - presumably because it doesn't find enough detail or contrast on the front surface.

Is this true? What I find more interesting is the idea that we should focus on the eyebrows in order to get the front of the eye surface in focus. What aperture on a 50mm does anyone think you'd need to be sure of that. And I think it would take a great effort to re-train the brain to do this in practice.

So Smeggy, did you get her number then?

They're all good images of these animals relaxing and enjoying their day!

They look good on the website. If you are determined not to do any computer processing on them, then I would recommend you at least add a notch or 2 of 'contrast' from you camera custom settings menu, as they are a little 'flat' in appearance. They look a little under-exposed to me, perhaps just 0.5 a stop? Although a contrast boost might fix that aspect as well.

It would be worthwhle I think to take a few test shots in new location and have a quick check on the screen to try a few custom settings before continuing with the shoot (if you're doing camera JPEGs).

Having said that, the saturation, colour balance and sharpness all seem to be well in order!

I think the 'door' aspect here is minimised, to negative effect really. These are essentially architectural details, just on a single theme. I would prefer to see the whole door with a bit of its surrounds in a context - that invites the wonder of what is behind.

Whatever RAW coverter you use, I would recommend taking a close look at all the lens correction options - sometimes there are positive activations by default which may be acting on your image even though you do nothing. A common example of this is ACR sharpening of +25.

Alistair, another point occured to me, I notice that in landscape format you are often placing the faces off-centre, usually right (like in 2 & 4 here). This can work well, but I have noticed also that in some (such as No2) you are getting some very bright highlights in the background - blurred of course, and maybe even reduced in brightness, but if they are present a distraction is there, so I think in that situation it would better to get the face filling up the frame more centred.

Philip, of your 2 new versions there I think the 2nd is the best, seems to strike the right balance. More sparkle and it looks a little sharper too - you've kept the basic brightness of you original interpretation as well.

Smeggy's goes further, a bit far I think with the darkening, and this has pulled the contrast back too much I feel and the open sky now looks like a storm is now rolling in! It has more mood, so if you like that Philip it might be worth trying to darken the undergrowth a bit - Smeggy, you've got some artifacts there around the trees in the far distance - is that just LR struggling a bit there?

Colour here would be better, I think so also. B & W in this genre is really for when you come across a crusty old ex-sailor with a beard and a pipe, deep wrinkly indentations all over his face, & talking in a west country manner about gettin the skuuurrveeee ..

Agreed, but if it was slight movement due to shooting technique would the blurring / de-saturation as seen be restricted to a single edge?

Yes, I agree - I suggested to the OP that he check the default / auto settings on his RAW software, as like Manesty also, I think it looks like CA correction. kh, why do you not think this is the case?

Yes, sorry, contrails are an issue, not looking!. I just felt warm sky in 4 was a bit too much, the deeper blue was nicer - maybe just select the sky and change the temperature on it a little>?