Horrible! I think there was a leaf out of place on the first one not to mention the others.

J/K Incredible! Good work!

Globally it's good work and nice photos.
I wasn't going to write some critics, but you asked for some.
Not easy, because it's good work, so it's going to be a matter of preference more than real problems.

1) more details on the forest hill on the background. It's somewhat blurry while the mountain isn't
2) the grass look a bit overexposed
3) maybe a bit more exposition ? I had to find something ;-)
4) that's an incredible shoot. Maybe more contrast/saturation or strengthen details on post processing ? Just to make it look more 'in focus'
5) crop it a bit to cut part of the overexposed flower and bring more attention on the insect ?

Really, these are good photos.

This is amateur critique, but the only one that I don't like is the last one and only because it seems like so little of the photograph is in focus. Most of it is blurry and the mantis itself has very bland colors. Most of them though look like something I'd be happy to have as a desktop background. The nebula one isn't overly interesting to me though and nothing about the photograph pops, but it has to be somewhat impressive to just get such detail from something so far away.

Siegelord: The color balance was adjusted on my end to emphasize the H-alpha (red) since it is an emission nebula. As for the halos, that's most likely because of the sharpening I applied. It's a tricky balancing act.

Gulladriel: I agree with most of your critiques. As for the nebula, I only had 90min of exposure which might explain the softness. I plan on getting a few more hours of exposure which should help sharpen it.

Edgar: I have an old account that I haven't posted to in a while. I've thought about adding an instagram and facebook page for my photos. I already have a deviant account (http://springfieldshtos.deviantart.com/).

Type: I was trying to draw attention to just the upper torso of the mantis since, as other have said, it's fairly boring in terms of colors. Plus, I was already shooting at f18. Any higher and I'd just be getting soft photos. For some reason it never occurred to me to crop out the flower...

I use Photoshop for all my post-processing (along with several other tools for my space shots). I've gotten quite fond of Google's Nik plugins to help refine what I can do with ACR and the standard tools.

I don't consider myself to be a professional photographer or my photos as professional quality. Thanks a lot for the comments

I use a Skywatcher ProED 80mm telescope with field flattener/reducer and a full spectrum modified Canon T3i. I have it all mounted on a Celestron CG-4 mount.

& he doesn't consider himself a pro..

Similarly, getting paid for it and therefore being a professional doesn't mean you know what you're doing or are any good at it.

Most people understand "professional" to mean you're good at it in English too, but it's a misconception. In practice, it just means you get paid to do it. There's no regulation of the terminology. You can claim to be a professional without getting paid for it too. As far as I know it carries no legal obligations. It means basically nothing. Still it's common in the US, Canada, and presumably other countries that include English as an official language for people to advertise or defend based on the premise that they're "professionals". It probably should stand to reason that if you do a particular job for a living that you're good at it, but in practice that's not true in the West; presumably not anywhere.