Commons:Photography critiques

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

Archives:

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.

Contents

[edit] July

[edit] Suggestions for amendment

I stitched this 360° pano from 32 single images. As I didn't use a tripod the result is maybe not the best. I'm not too happy with the appearance of the sky in the right part but that's what it looked like that day. So if you have any suggestions how to improve this image or how to make better panos in the future, you're welcome to tell me. Or do you think, this pano meets the criterias for quality images? --тнояsтеn ⇔ 21:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The clouds at the right look like they have quite a few blown highlights. Overexposure happens very easily when one uses a camera panoramic mode. And the horizon looks wavy to me, minimum of the sine wave about one third from the left. The latter one you can fix on your computer. For the overexposure problem, unless it was introduced during the stitch, one needs to retake the photos, preferably with some small underexposure. And looking at the path one third from right, I see some parts out of focus. Hence third recommendation: make sure the camera focuses ok, better set it to manual focus. As a backup, take >50% overlap, then one missing photo does not spoil a whole panoramic set. Good luck, this definitively is a nice view. -- Klaus with K (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I'll try to work on the horizon if I find time the next days. Concerning focus and overexposure, I have to say that my equipment is far from professional as I use a Canon Digital IXUS 80 IS and as I said before the pictures were shot without using a tripod. But I try to get the best out of it ;-) --тнояsтеn ⇔ 20:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Does anyone know why thumbs of a file can look ugly sometimes?

Uh? The quality of this photo is set 100%, so why?

I uploaded some files today, and I'm wondering why this photo looks ugly at low resolution... I've done basic (and lossless) photo manipulation and I get this result. Does anyone know why? The DNG (RAW) file is provided if you think you can edit it to make it look a bit better... Thank you in advance. →Diti the penguin —

Regardless of the original compression setting, the Mediawiki software applies rather aggressive JPEG compression when generating low-resolution copies, and the JPEG format is an inherently poor choice for compressing images with smooth gradients, if preserving those gradients is any sort of priority. Have you tried uploading it as PNG? —LX (talk, contribs) 22:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, you have a point, about the gradient thing. Once I upload the PNG version, what template should I put on it to say to comers from Wikipedia through the PNG version: “hey, this file is too big, check the JPEG there”? I've found out {{JPEG version of PNG}}, but that's for the other way around. PS: Someone already put my image(s) on our Wikipedia, I guess it'll be a problem already if visitors want to reuse it. →Diti the penguin — 22:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't even aware of {{JPEG version of PNG}}, but through Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:JPEG version of PNG, I found {{PNG with JPEG version}}, which seems to be what you're looking for. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] June

[edit] How can I fix this Image?

Thank you for your comments. 77.126.82.50 17:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be more specific. What do you think needs to be fixed?
If it is about getting vertical object features vertically aligned in the image, look into [1]. When going for architectural projection, maybe crop slightly at the right. -- Klaus with K (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


Sorry for not being clear. Iv'e been told that the image is "Very noisy and unsharp" and that "you should improve the camera support." Thank you. Rastaman3000 (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing much you can do with this particular image without seriously degrading it, suggestions were probably meant for pictures you will take in the future. Image is noisy and unsharp; if you zoom in to 100% (original size), you can see that everything is pixelated - this is because your camera's sensor was set to a very high ISO value for such low light conditions. ISO value represents the sensor's light sensitivity, but if it's set too high, you start getting digital noise. This, and your sharpness issue can be solved simply buy putting your camera on a tripod. This way you can lower the ISO setting (cheaper cameras usually start to act funny above 320 - it's best to experiment) and prolong the exposure without the camera shaking. --Yerpo (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures with inexpensive cams

Talking of most common criticisms of a picture, we get noise or focus. But essentially that is to a major extent dependent on camera. So how about pictures taken with inexpensive cameras. Do we, third world activist photographers get space as well to put up images sincerely captured with ordinary cameras? I guess there should be a space for discussion on a photograph about stuff other than those depending on the camera. These pictures were taken in a village of Sunderban, India during a visit as a part of a voluntary relief team after the devastating Cyclone Aila. The cyclone struck the region on May 25, 2009. The entire village was already submerged, it's people homeless and it was still pouring. The picture to the left is of a father son duo waiting outside their makeshift hut, the cyclone washed away everything, and they were lucky to have escaped with their lives. The image to the right is of a member of the relief team walking down a submerged road even as it rained heavily. --Koustav2007 (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what do you mean by "space to put up". The images won't get deleted just because they're of somewhat lower quality and the examples you show here are actually quite decent (compared to some horrible stuff that's also on Commons). So feel free to make a gallery page with the pictures of events you witnessed or something similar. If you want to propose them for the featured or quality image status, that's something else. The technical quality is an important issue there, but rarity or difficulty of shot is certainly a mitigating circumstance. You can also propose them for valued image status, but make sure you select an appropriate scope. It would also help if you wrote a less emotional description and added location, date, context, etc. Wikimedia ommons is all about encyclopedic value of multimedia files. --Yerpo (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Your camera is not so bad. It has a 8 Mpixels CCD sensor (3,264 × 2,448 pixels). I got pictures promoted for COM:VI and even COM:QI (only once) with a much simpler one (only 1.9 Mpixels, 1,600 × 1,200 pixels). Yann (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
after GREYCstoration filter
The thing is, pixels aren't everything, contrary to what people in advertising would like us to believe... --Yerpo (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Especially, the Valued images project was initated having exactly such types of contributions in mind. The idea there is to stimulate contributions of new subjects from new places of the world and appreciate the new and unique. It does not have to look wow, the subject can even be "boring". An objective of that project is that images taken by a modern mobile phone or equivalent is sufficient from a technical point of view provided the basic elements such as composition and fairly good lightning is considered. --Slaunger (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I applied the default setting of GREYCstoration filter to your image. It removed most of the noise. I think you could try it as quality picture. There is certainly of lot of feelings from this image. Yann (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, the original is better. There is no magic tool to make the image of an inexpensive cam better. That's ok. Don't even try. Any editing will inadvertently remove information and degrade quality. Editing is fine if you want to emphasize certain aspects for the viewer (for example by increasing contrast), but you will never increase image quality, that only works in the movies ("computer, zoom in, enhance, oh I see a license plate reflected in the eyeball"). The GREYCstorated version just trades a bit of noise for a smudgy look and wiped out details. --Dschwen (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Nomatter which camera you use you can often improve an image by doing a good crop. Like, in the father/son image I would probably crop away the two objects at the left hand side, which are only seen half in the image. The reason being that they are slightly distracting and add no value to the story the photo is telling. The right hand side could probably also be cropped a little bit. In that manner the subject (father and son) would fill a larger fraction of the image, which would be a slight improvement in my opinion. Dschwen mentions contrast as an example of how photos can also be improved, looking at histograms and fiddling with curves you can also sometimes improve the perceived quality of a photo when carefully applied, which is a slightly more sophisticted approach than adjusting the contrast. At least I think that may have helped me getting a point-and-shoot photo taken with a compact camera promoted to Featured picture once. --Slaunger (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
(resetting indent) Your camera specs appear more than adequate to produce images for QI, VI and FP. But what are those artifacts? It looks like either the camera is over processing things or the quality setting is too low - is that using the best quality setting (lowest compression)(8MF setting I think) ? I would expect the file size to be nearer 3MB for that resolution and low compression. It needs to be said that getting an FP/QI stamp is not quite the same as producing good photographs (although the two do intersect :-). Commons has particular demands that mean a 'good photo' elsewhere might not be good enough :-). In general I agree with User talk:Dschwen, but you may have to do a bit of selective blurring on noisey, poorly lit, backgrounds to keep people happy. I agree with User talk:Slaunger that framing your scene is most important (not my best ability), and you've probably got enough pixels to play with so that you can use cropping to enhance the scene. With the first picture I would actually like to see more of the background - the family against the backdrop of everything flooded (but maybe that is a different shot :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is really enriching. Being new to this forum, I might have made some silly statements. Point taken about cropping, but wouldn't it make the picture frame disproportionately elongated? And will definitely try to be less emotional while describing a picture. And where do you add the location, context? And date is already present/embedded in the picture file from the camera time!? And about the GREYCstoration filter, it actually seems to work! How do you apply it? Photoshop does not seem to have it, is it a specific s/w?--203.171.245.169 13:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Pictures don't have to have the same proportions as cameras make them, and it should be ok as long as you don't overdo the cropping. With "context" I meant the same information as you wrote at the top here (so, something like "Taken in Sunderban, India during a visit as a part of a voluntary relief team after the devastating Cyclone Aila. The cyclone struck the region on May 25, 2009. The entire village was already submerged, it's people homeless and it was still pouring. The image represents...."). Click on the picture, then click the "edit" button at the top of the page you are taken to and you'll be able to edit everything. You can also mark the location on Yahoo/Google maps and represent the coordinates with the {{Location}} template. It takes a bit of effort to understand the template system, but the instructions are well written and you can always copy how others have done it. The time is indeed embedded into the image file, but it is more convenient for the viewer to be able to see it faster. Just fill in the |Date= parameter of the description template. As for the filter, you can download it here. --Yerpo (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
For geotagging, I use Geolocator, which makes everything much easier. I use the GREYCstoration filter with The Gimp. I don't know the equivalent for Photoshop, but The Gimp works on Windows too. Yann (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you guys suggest something about the other pic shot in the rain? Apart from the noise, it does have some reflections on small water droplets, had it been reflection on suspended dust, it would have to have been treated, but in the rain it seems to add to the dynamics of the falling rain, at least I felt so. Could you suggest?--203.171.245.169 13:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] February

[edit] Sunrise in Constanta

Hello! These are the first pictures i uploaded on wiki and some of the first pictures i have made with my own camera. I really enjoy photographing and I was hoping to get some feedback on them(perhaps pointing mistakes that I have done?).Thanks in advance.Moise Nicu (talk) 18:20, 02 March 2009 (UTC)
Your sunrises are fine, my only objection is the subject. We already have hundreds of phototos of sun, warm-colored clouds and possibly reflection in water. Photograph something that is more unique. Wikipedia has millions of articles and most of them would really benefit from a picture nobody has yet taken. Articles covering your neighborhood might be a good start. --che 01:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bracadale in Scotland

Bracadale and Coillore

While I found this photo interesting enough for uploading, I am not fully happy about the framing. While the fence looks ok to me, the leftmost cloud is sliced, and at the right a tree is cut in half. Fortunately I was taking a few more photos at the time, and so I have got a panoramic view to start with.

panoramic

Now I am wondering about different crops possible. Crop 4 looks to me ok on the right edge, but on the left edge I am hesitating on whether to include the fence and maybe some parts of the old road. -- Klaus with K (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

crop 1

crop 2

crop 3

crop 4

[edit] Analog Multimeter

I would like to know you opinion: Is it worth for a quality picture nomination? Or what can be done for improvement?--Harke (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


Yes, i think it is good quality! All sharp. Do you have a photo with a higher resolution? --SvonHalenbach (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
No, sorry, that is the highest resolution. --Harke (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Picture Nominee review

Some of the pictures I plan to nominate for FP. Are any of these likely to be good enough? They're all above the required resolution. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Special Tactics Group, Jump
F/A-18E Arrested Landing on USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71).jpg

F/A-18E Landing
F/A-18F after launch from USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72).jpg

F/A-18, USS Abraham Lincoln

Military Fire-fighter Training

B2 on Guam

C-17, Zagreb Airbase

Medevac

F/A-18E landing

A-10 Thunderbolt II

B2 coming in for refuel

F-16

Hardtack Nuclear Test

F-16

F/A-18 Carrier Launch

An F/A-18 breaks the sound barrier

A Kamov KA-27 lands on a flight deck

LCAC, USS Bataan

Night artillery fire

Nuclear launch keys

Kaman Seapsrite landing

MV-22 Osprey

Spanish M109 on exercise

HSV 2, Bridgetown

USS Bainbridge

USS Russell enveloped in spray

F-35 prototype
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photography_critiques"
Personal tools