I'm no expert so I can't comment on the technical side of the process (how well it's executed), but personally I liked the uncloned versions better - especially the flower.
It is all about practice. Once you've done a few dozen times, you'll feel more in control and more comfortable and it won't feel such a daunting challenge. My approach is to take it a small bit at a time and keep checking from where you want to take the sample that your going to put in place.
I understand the latest version of Photoshop has all the bells and whistles and will do this sort of thing for you if you talk nicely to it. I'm sure i would like that if I had it. But, for the meantime, I enjoy doing it the 'old-fashioned' way.
I think cloning is one of those things we can get too hung-up on and act as though everyone is going to be viewing our images from 2 inches with a very powerful magnifying glass. If someone is wanting to do that, then they're very welcome to find all the 'faults' in my images. However, for real world viewing, it's about making an image that reflects the image that you saw in your head when you pressed the shutter. So, in most cases so far as I'm concerned, working at the smaller scale makes a lot more sense.
First one is fine but the 2nd is very obvious. I usually clone with a soft edged brush at 50% (building up slowly) and finish with the smudge tool set to 45% opacity at a rate of 50% - you can play with these setting obviously and much depends on the image. The orange bit follows the line of the blade of grass to closely and a little feathering at the egde of the orange will break that line.
Better still a little tidying of the scene can save a lot of work at the computer. In the second image the offending blade could have been tucked behind the flower. The first - not so easy - but a slightly different shooting angle of view would have cured it though. Donald has been known to wait as long as 6 hours before pressing the shutter waiting for clouds to float into position and he has even been known to super glue the sheep to the hillsides. I am not that extreme but I am fast learning that this principle of checking all aspects before pressing the shutter pays off big time.
Innovative. Though wellies are more traditional
The question is - would anyone have noticed that you had cloned something out of the shot if you hadn't pointed it out?
It would never have crossed my mind.
I think this is the rule going forward. Don't say anything and take the hit if you're caught out posting a shot with a glaring error.
The first one is done very well.
The flower however you can see it could be done better.
I suggest specially with the flower to move the disturbing grass a little up before making the photo. Takes you maybe one minute extra bus save more PP time in the end.
With number 2 most certainlyThe question is - would anyone have noticed that you had cloned something out of the shot if you hadn't pointed it out?
The first shot is, I believe, just cloning practice material; the 'looking down on a pet cat' view just isn't a good angle. That said, the cloning is reasonable at that size.
I actually thought you'd done #2 quite well, but on closer inspection at the larger size, I can see what is meant about the red parts ending suddenly, a little smudging could have helped. I still think it looks quite believable disappearing beneath the bloom like that, I'd have been tempted to take the whole thing out, making loads more work for myself