Commons:Photography critiques

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

Archives:

manually added these subpages that do not yet exist September,

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] November

[edit] View from Corcovado

I got the ingredient photos from Wolfhardt and stitched them. Comments for the stitching, comments which address the original photos, both welcome. -- Klaus with K (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] October

[edit] Miscellaneous photographs

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

I have taken these photos, and nominated several for Quality Image and Valued Image status. However, many of them do not meet the size requirements. I would still like to receive some constructive criticism, though. Any comments or suggestions, positive or otherwise, would be most appreciated. Elucidate (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  •  Comment I numbered them for ease of commenting, it is a shame that they are so small being over 1200px would be enough for QI. 1) the rose is a good composition, it be nice to know the variety otherwise it just another rose photo. 2)looks flat, I'd say crop the top to remove the dark edge of the concrete from the corner. Gnangarra 09:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    • continued... 3.) I like, but for size would pass QI. 4) another that would pass QI but for size. 5) has wow but the shallow dof take the top of the arch out of focus. 6 lighting and shallow dof. 7. nice thought but its out of focus and the colors arent strong enough to show the contrast Gnangarra 09:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Just an advice. Use the best possible quality your camera has to offer (highest size and lowest ISO). It won't be possible to obtain the same quality as with a DSLR camera but, at least, you will get less noise and artifatcs. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment A first remark on categorization. An FP, a QI and especially a VI have to be properly categorized. I took the liberty to recat all above images. Have a look on what has changed. Finding images on commons stands or falls with the use of suitable categories. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motion shot

Like Prabbit237 I also have a new camera (Canon D450) and I've also been playing around with it. Any suggestions with this image? The only thing I altered was a 0.7 degree rotation CCW. Silver Spoon (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] September

[edit] Autumn pictures

I would like to hear some thoughts about these pictures; what's good, what could be improved, and so on. Thank you! -- Helleborus (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Only a general review

I only would like to know what do you think about these photos, only a general review and a list of weak points. Thanks very much, --sNappy 19:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The 3rd photo (wine) is better than two others. I like color. But it is possible that too much objects at this photo. --AKA MBG (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Close-up shots

I just got a new camera (Canon S5) and have been playing around with it. I've never done any serious photography work before and am trying various things with this camera to see what looks good and what doesn't. Any suggestions with these pictures? The only post processing done was in GIMP to adjust the color level/curve.--Prabbit237 (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  •  Comment - These kind of shots, at close distance, are probably too much for your kind of camera. To be sure, you'll have first to adjust it to the maximum available quality (to which corresponds the maximum file size), otherwise your pictures will be spoiled by the compression artifacts. Also, try always to work with the minimum available ISO setting (usually 100), to avoid noise (your pictures are really noisy, look at the backgrounds). Finally, you should have control over the depth-of-field, by chosing yourself the aperture (F number). With close range photographs, that is critical. Please let me know if the explanation was too technical. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • PS - take a look here, many of those were shot with a bridge-type camera. Please open the files and notice the exposure solutions (f number, shutter speed, ISO) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanx for the comments. The camera can go down to an ISO of 80 and F2.8 (I think both of those were 200 and F3.5.) I'm still learning how to work it, etc. (I got it the day before taking those pics and have only had el-cheapo point-and-shoot cameras before now. This one's still considered a point-and-shoot (it's not an SLR) but it's a higher-end one. Also the resolution can go to 8 megs but I had it bumped down on those (not sure if I still have the RAW files or not.) And no, the explanation wasn't too technical. I know what the various terms mean, etc. I just need to learn how to apply them<g> --Prabbit237 (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photography_critiques"
Personal tools