Critique: Several students asked how I got the moon's detail. I was setting the shot for a long exposure, and accidentally hit the (new) shutter remote. It happened so fast, I didn't even think I got a shot - but I did, and I am so happy about it!
The Professor was also impressed, and mentioned how this can be done by "just about anyone" so didn't really fit into the scope of the project. Impressed, but out of scope.

“WesNight: Laser Lights” ƒ/8.0 | Shutter 10.0 | ISO 100
Explained that I was experimenting with the bulb shutter and using my remote button. This, displayed right next to the detailed lunar shot, didn't get much commentary.
Professor: Again, impressive shot, well thought and framed, but out of the project scope.

Several of the students were interested in this image. They felt invited to explore more, and were impressed by the play of light and shadow. 
Professor: Lots of thought and focus on this, but again, does not give a real sense of uniqueness.
Rebuttal from another student: Contrary to that, it -is- a real play on the lighting - is that the moon or a street light?
(I respond that it is, indeed, the moon. the trees are under lit by one of the street lamps on Wesleyan's campus.)
And there, the student says, is its uniqueness. It is not just a shot of "some light" - it is deep, expressive, and really detailed n a way you don't expect of trees at night.
After more thought and discussion, the Professor started to see it as well.

Critique: This-is-awesome. The amount of light, detail, and balance is wonderful. Showing the Porter Fine Arts Building in this way is dramatic and inspiring. Comments about the composition and not including the top of the building circulated - but when I mentioned the other lights (out of frame) and how including the top of the building would mean also including those lights - it would kill the effect and the focus. I do have shots showing the top of the building, but the central focus on the banners and the main composition is lost - it is then just a picture of the building with some lights and banners. This framing drives the focus to the details - the lights on the bricks, the lights behind the banners, the details of the banners, the details in the doors The walkway & crossing of lights and shadow, the pillars and the way the lights and shadows define them. Even the bushes - everything has meaning.
Professor: One of the best shots she's seen. Balance, detail, lighting and composition are spot on. This is documentary.

Photographer Note: The exhibit represented by these banners ended on Oct. 26 - I knew I had to get this shot or it would never happen.

“After The Storm” ƒ/16.0 | Shutter 1.60 | ISO 400
Critique: The depth and detail on this cloudy day are precise. A few commented this could be a postcard - and they actually thought this was a promo shot taken by the campus! The chapel being the focus under the intensely detailed cloudy sky sends a message of hope. Using the tall (portrait) layout, people thought it was all pond and not the flooded road after some bad storms (the road flooded and traffic was closed off). That made my peers appreciate even more the effect of the image - and the documentary purpose it serves.

Professor: Composition is superb. Also did not realize that it is a shot of the flooded road - thought it was the actual pond in the foreground!

Photographer note: another student did this almost exact shot, but it was in landscape and the camera settings very different so details were not as crisp. I barely did any editing on this image - just a wee nudge on white balance.

Critique: Her arms are cut off, and the image is soft. Although the subject's expression is rather coy, the fuzziness is distractive.
Professor: next to all the others, makes me wonder who shot this portrait. Did you crop it? (Yes, I did crop.) That is why it is fuzzy. Composition is not the best, and this detracts from the wild success of the previous images. 

Photographer note: I like the "soft-fuzzy" look personally... 

Critique: Best portrait - the subject is clearly photogenic! (I will note here, the subject hates her profile). Several noted that her entire body included within the frame (not being cut off) really helps make it portrait worthy.

Professor: The shallow depth of field, lighting, and composition of this portrait are completely in line with the genre.

Critique: Again, cutting off (the wolf, the hand) makes this feel too tight even though clear and sharp and nicely colored - it feel claustrophobic. Then, one of my peers realized this is the same shot I submitted for the Transfer Student Feature - I just cropped it tighter for the class submission. She stated, the featured image is the better image.

Professor: Very fine detail and clarity - although the deliberate position of the college's mascot & name seems more promotional than portrait.

Photographer Note: I hate selfies. This self portrait was done tethered to my laptop and using the remote trigger. This is the first time I used the tethering software, and did about 200 shots to figure out how to focus. The Wesleyan Wolf was set on the top of the chair, and I used that for focus and white balance. Then I sat in the chair and got this shot.