Commons:Photography critiques

Shortcut: COM:PC

2006: October, November, December 2007: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2008: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2009: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2010: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December

Please insert new entries at the top.

Please comment on oldest entries (nearest the bottom) first.

For some suggestions on what makes for a good photo, and to understand the terminology used here, you may like to read Commons:Image guidelines.

January 2012

Decorated room, Mehrangarh Fort, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India

• 
• 
• 

The light condition was very difficult: very bright at the top, very dark at the bottom, and yellow light from the lamps, sunlight from the window. Comments, suggestions? Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You get better results in such cases with exposure bracketing (several photos with different exposure; tripod required) and combining the different takes with a suitable software, cf. [High dynamic range imaging]. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a tripod is not allowed in most places like this. Yann (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

London Underground A62 Stock (left image) --- vs. --- CTA red line rerouted (right image)

vs.

Good evening Wikimedians: inspired by File:CTA red line rerouted.jpg, I'd like to see how I could improve the above image into FI or QI status. Thank you. --Marianian (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
feel free to nominate your photo here Quality_images_candidates or here Featured_picture_candidates after reading my message below. There is never a guarantee that a photo reaches QI and FI status, because there is an area of descretion in the judement of the reviewer(s) to some extent. For QI, the area of descretion is smaller because the technical criteria are most relevant but light situation and image composition can and should IMO also be taken into account. For FI, briefly speaking, the demanded WOW-factor induces a large area of descretion for the voters. Concerning the file File:CTA red line rerouted.jpg (right image)), QI is OK for me, but I wouldn't have voted for it to become a FI.

My general recommendation if you want to produce photos, which have a likelihood to reach QI status:
1) Read the QI critera on Wikimedia Commons carefully and have them in mind when taking/editing/judging your pictures.
2) Have a regular look at the QI candidates list and read the discussions, why individual photos are promoted or why the promotion is declined. This will give you a feeling about the chances of your photos.
3) Don't be discouraged, if your first candidates are rejected.

My recommendation concerning your photo above:
I'm really not sure, whether editing of your photo can significantly improve the chance, that it gets promoted to QI status. My recommendations for your next photo at this location are...
1) Choose ISO100 instead of ISO400, this photo is relatively noisy, which you can see, when you zoom in. Much more noisy than File:CTA red line rerouted.jpg. I think, this is the main problem with you photo. (Or the JPEG compression is too high and you have JPEG artifacts. Choose always the highest image quality/largest image size in your camera settings. Based on the file size of your photo, I don't think the problem is a high JPEG compression.)
2) May be: Choose an aperture smaller than f/4.5 (e.g. f/8), the depth of field is only in the foreground and IMO too small. Well, I notice, that the photo File:CTA red line rerouted.jpg has also a quite small depth of field. An open aperture, i.e. a small depth of field can also be a design element.
3) Choose a day and time with a better light situation. The light in your photo is relatively dull. Sunshine in the morning or late afternoon is usually very good. I know, also no bright sunshine in File:CTA red line rerouted.jpg.

When directly comparing your image with File:CTA red line rerouted.jpg, they look only on first sight very similar (trains in same orientation). There is not only the difference in noise. The image composition and the colors of File:CTA red line rerouted.jpg are more harmonious in my opinion. The motif is more tidy and stylish, which may be reason for the promotion to FI. Well, a clear advantage of your photo is the smile of the train driver: :-)

Hope, this helps, best regards -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

December

Golden Gate bridge from boat

Hi, this is the first time I come to this page. I would like to read your opinions on the picture above. Thanks. --Hispalois (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Nice atmosphere. However, composition-wise, there's a lot of uninteresting rocks on the left, it would be better if you framed the shot so the tower would be 2/3 to the left rather than centered. It's also quite unsharp and noisy if you open the full resolution (suppose more couldn't be expected of a mobile phone camera). — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Quite interesting composition, the rocks on the left don't disturb me. But image quality is quite poor due to the small sensor. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, unfortunately that's all the quality that my iPhone will give. It's a pity I was not carrying heavier artillery that day. Thanks for your comments. --Hispalois (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

March

Cruise ship AIDAblu

Same ship, around half an hour later

How likely is it that I can get this picture promoted as FP or QI, or is it a VI within the scope "AIDAblu"? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the ship is darker than the background at first glance, but is the sunset feeling your intention? --Marianian (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I took the photograph early in a morning of July not long after sunrise and the lighting pleases me, so yes. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

February

Some computer adapters

I'd be grateful for a feedback on this picture of a couple of computer adapters - Useful for the encyclopedia? Maybe a candidate for QI? Thanks, --S nova (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm, I think a bit too noisy for QI, maybe it would pass on VI under the scope 'Computer adapters' or something similar. And I think it would be more useful if you'd name each one, what both the male and female parts are. Either way, it certainly has its place on EnWiki; I've already added it to an article. Good work. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback! I've added some (hopefully useful) annotations. As far as the noise goes, I agree (thanks for the hint, leaves me a bit puzzled as I used the noise reduction feature of my D90). When I've time, I'll see if I can do something about it with Photoshop elements or the GIMP.--S nova (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• I don't find it too noisy, but it is lacking a bit in sharpness. -- King of Hearts (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Now slightly (well, hopefully ...) sharpened & de-noised. --S nova (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Holiday Inn Express, Daytona Beach Shores

I would appreciate an evaluation to see if this image could qualify for promotion to VI, QI or FP. Although it was loaded from Flickr, it is my photo. Thank you for your time. Gamweb (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• To me, vertical perspective distortion. Too little size (1,024 × 768 pixels), can't be QI.--213.60.77.80 22:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Too tight crop at bottom --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.77.80 (talk • contribs)

It is a quite attractive, sharp image, reasonably exposed (although it could be brightened a little with little loss of detail) and proper colour balance. But it probably wouldn't get through QI or FP due to its low resolution - 1024x768 is quite small for Commons images, we like them as big as possible to allow for the widest variety of uses. The minimum normally acceptable in QI & FP is 2 mega pixels (so something 1650x1250 minimum). For a static object like a building (that is not liable to run away and isn't bending in the wind), a much higher resolution tends to be demanded (people take multiple closeup shots of different parts of the building and stitch them together into one large image (eg see Hugin)).

Another aspect that would worry QI and FP reviewers would be the perspective distortion that makes the image look as though it tappers towards the top or leans back away from the camera - quite a normal effect of human vision too, but one which can be easily 'corrected' with digital photographs (and generally results is a more 'pleasing' image, vertical lines looking vertical not sloped).

Framing of images is not my strong point, but I expect that the half tree on the right and street light protruding from the left, should be removed. Clearing the cars out of the car park would probably keep some reviewers happy (but not the hotel management :-)

FP reviewers wouldn't be excited by the subject (just another un-exceptional hotel), so probably not worth going there. VI might be interested if it is a good example of something (this style of architecture perhaps?). If you have a high resolution version and 'correct' the perspective distortion I think it may reasonably pass QI.

-- Tony Wills (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

December

Logo contest for Humanitarian OSM Team (HOT)

Would like some comments on this, there is a logo contest http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Team_Logo for the humanitarian team going on, you are all welcome to participate. Idea is that HOT = flame = danger. and the humanitarian team helps where there are problems.

Cool idea. I think you should erase paper folds from under the magnifier because they wouldn't be the same scale as those around. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Funny you metion that, the error is also in the other OSM logo.

i will think about how to do it better. thanks for the tips. 16:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of electrical equipment

My comment: To me the image seems to have some slight colour noise in the grey areas. Sharpening at the edges is clearly visible, I consider the magnitude borderline, but still the image is not really sharp. I presume it was the camera that sharpened. One the plus side I like the composition, lighting is ok. But before you go for QI or FP, this image is less than two Megapixels in size and hence not eligible for QI and FP. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Several months ago, I took these pictures and uploaded them here. I'm new to Commons, so I'd appreciate a critique of these photos and whether they have any chance at promotion to VI, QI, or FP. I took the first using a Kodak EasyShare Z650 (JPEG artifacts?), the second using a Nikon Coolpix 5000 (as uncompressed TIFF). I have made minor editing (lossless cropping and/or color correction) and stripped the Exif data for privacy reasons, but I can provide relevant details here if necessary. Thanks, PleaseStand ^(talk) 04:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Uploading such an image as PNG is nonsense. Just upload a JPG at full camera resolution. Less waste of bandwith and better overall quality. --Dschwen (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the photo above to the JPEG version (which I already had uploaded). PleaseStand ^(talk) 05:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the cheater plug could be nominated at VI within the scope "Cheater plug", and maybe the centralized vacuum cleaner could be nominated as VI within the scope "Centralized vacuum cleaner". The latter photo has a more cluttered composition than the first, which is a good illustration of its subject IMO. I would not recommend nominating any of them as QI and FP. --Slaunger (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Zea mays under a microscope

Is there any chance to have this image promoted as VI, QI or even FP or is there a chance for achieving this aim with some processing? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it could easily become a VI, but it has far too bad compression artefacts for any other chosen status. No processing method I know can fix that sufficiently. Next time, try increasing the image quality your camera produces, if possible. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be a lot better if this was shot RAW. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do not know any digital compact camera that was was able to shoot RAW back in 2004-2005, with the exception of some CHDK-able Canon products... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

April

Gravestone with swastika

Any comments and suggestions about this picture ? I think it has a good educational value for showing a use of swastika in Alsace before the Nazis, something not unusal on gravestones from this time in this region.

If you think that another type of light/time of day would give a better picture, I can try another shot following your suggestions. --Pethrus (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the lighting is great, but the motive is awfully tightly cropped and the viewer doesn't get a sense of scale and context. Perhaps it would help if you uploaded a shot from further away and linked the two images. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I uploaded a shot of the full gravestone. Should I try another shot with the immediate skull surroundings? I fear that the swastika wouldn't be as visible then. --Pethrus (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO, this is good enough if you want to emphasize the swastika. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)