Still with the tulips. As compared to the other three thus far, this is the first that doesn't rely on selective focus or overlaying two images - just a straight shot as technically correct as possible (for me). For a macro version - http://www.pbase.com/ed_k/image/93535940
If I were judging and had to chose between today's PAD and yesterday's - http://www.pbase.com/ed_k/image/93490278 - my vote would go to yesterday's because it has more soul/emotion. Today's PAD is a pretty picture of a pretty subject without the photographer adding anything of himself other than technical skill. I judge based on 4-C's which are Craftsmanship, Composition, Creativity and Communication (does the image tell a story; does it sing to me). Yesterday's PAD is ahead on the fourth C.
A technical note - proper lighting for tulips is tricky. The petals can shine (reflect) as much as glass or water. Your tulip image is apt to have blown out colors (white) if you don't use a circular polarizer (or even if you do sometimes). Diffusion disks to shade critical areas and reflectors to get light into darker areas (in combo with the CP to get nice even lighting - not flat, not dark, not blown out) all add to the equation. Just pointing and shooting won't get the job done under normal circumstances. Oh, yeah, and use a tripod to slow down & work on your composition and a cable release to deal with the longish shutter speeds (1 sec. here) without rocking the boat. When you see an image that appears to be well done technically, odds are that more work went into making it look good than you might imagine - not just handhold, point, shoot. This is all natural light; I only use flash for people indoors.