Commons:Photography critiques/November 2007
Monarch Butterfly Cocoon
I have one FP on Commons and I'm always looking for interesting things to add. I just wanted to ask what people think of these pictures. I wish it could have been in a more natural location, but sadly, you can't choose these things. -IG-64 08:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- The image looks a little flat, a bit more contrast would improve it. Calibas 05:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not a bad image, but remember you can rotate your camera by 90 degrees to get a portrait orientation, which would be better here. --MichaelMaggs 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Field of sunflowers.JPG
I think it's a good photo, and I'd like to get it up to QP status, if possible. I've given it a slight rotate but no other edits. Suggestions? Ben Aveling 09:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the focus is off and that's probably the biggest issue. What aperture did you use and at what time of the day? Composition wise it's good, though I would have had that house more to the sides (third's rule). Also you would have gotten a much better picture with a blue sky for contrast, as it is it looks washed out a bit. Dori - Talk 20:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's a pretty shot of a nice scene. Agreed that its focus is soft (although sharpening can help a little). Cropping can help. It looks stronger if you crop out most of the sky, or all of it (so the cloudy sky doesn't matter), or even crop it right down to the line between the flowers and the trees (then the location of the house doesn't matter). You can crop the foreground too, to a place where the flowers fill more of the picture. The resulting shape will be "panoramic."
- If you get a chance to take a similar photo next year, try using a polarizing filter. Turn it until the leaves become as green as you can make them. In this shot, they're picking up a lot of light from the clouds, making them bluish and bright. The polarizer can darken them and make them as green as they look when you're in the field. Fg2 02:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
My Frog Photo
Could someone look at my Photo of my pet frog and let me know what I could do to improve my photography skills. I am new to Photography, Thanks,Grosscha 04:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Close-ups are hard. Start by reading through Commons:Image guidelines. In particular, have a look at the section on composition and crop, and lighting. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- A few hints:
- Make a clear decision in your mind about what the subject is. In this case it seems to be the whole frog. If that is what you want to photograph keep all parts of the frog within the frame. If you look around the edge several minor parts are cut away and this is distracting because the observer gets an incomplete view of the subject. You could also focus on other subjects such as the head or a leg in which case you should again make sure the whole subject is within the frame
- Lightning. In your photo there is a very bright area around the head of the frog due to reflections from a light source (perhaps a flash?), which seem to be shining directly on the frog. This gives a harsh and unattractive lightning. Try to add more (preferably indirect) light sources to get a more smooth and delicate lightning of the subject.
- Background. You have placed the frog on a piece of paper or something like that, which is better than just having completely random surroundings. However, the paper does not fill the background completely, which gives a somewhat messy and distracting background. If you choose to place it on a neutral surace make sure it extends the whole background. Having a uniform background sometimes helps to bring the attention to the subject. However, a paper background also gives an artificial impression as it is very clear that it is unlike the natural environment of the frog. An alternative background would be more nature-like with dirt, water, plants etc.
- You could add more value to the image if the frog is engaging in some action, which is more interesting than just resting. Try to capture it while jumping, eating or something like that.
- Very interesting frog by the way. I do not know much about frogs, but it sure looks exotic and I am looking forward to seeing more photos of your pet animal. Good luck experimenting. -- Slaunger 20:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- A few hints:
I would like some comments on these pictures - simply tell me what you think of them and how I could improve my photography skills. Thanks, Booksworm 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I like the sunset. Picture 2 could use more depth of field (DOF), for close up shots you may want to switch to aperture priority. For picture 3 I'd just do a tighter crop. Calibas 19:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- In Picture 2, the shallow depth of field is nice. It clearly separates the subject from the background, and adds a soft, gentle feel. If you used this photo for an encyclopedia, the lack of background detail might be detrimental to the illustrative value (or it might not), but Commons is not an encyclopedia, so it's appropriate to judge by broader criteria. Fg2 22:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Upper tangent arc
These are pictures of an atmospheric optical phenomenon. (We already have beautiful pictures of halo+sundogs+parhelic circle+tangent arc, but no picture that I found of this arc in isolation.) The second one is of course the first one with the contrast and saturation turned up some. It looks a bit more colorful than the way the real arc looked, but the real one was easier to see than the unenhanced picture. I have no idea where the best level of enhancement is, so I hope you can advise me. —JerryFriedman 04:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- As said this doesn't belong to the beautiful images but to technical documentation. I would therefore not recommend to boost saturation or to apply any tone mapping. I recommend to correct the dust particles on the lens and colour aberations (purple fringes on the pylon). Sincerly yours --Ikiwaner 09:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)