Commons:Photography critiques

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days.

color palette logo Welcome to the Photography critiques!


Would you like a second opinion before nominating a photograph of yours as a Quality Image, Valued Image or Featured Picture candidate, can't decide which of your images to enter into one of the Photo Challenges? Or do you have specific questions about how to improve your photography or just would like some general feedback?

This is the right page to gather other people's opinions!

If you want general suggestions to a good photo, you can ask here, and we already wrote guidelines.

See image guidelines >>

If you don't get some terminology used here, don't be shy you can ask about it, or read

See photography terms >>

Please insert new entries at the bottom, and comment on oldest entries first.

To prevent archiving use {{subst:DNAU}}, because SpBot archives all sections after 90 days, unless archiving has been postponed or suppressed through the use of {{subst:DNAU}}. You can ask the bot to archive a section earlier by using {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} – then it will be archived after 7 days.


Are my photos good enough?[edit]

Hi, I have a lot of photos that I upload to Commons, I always upload my best. Are they good enough to be: Quality, Valued or Featured?

Should I propose them to those categories?

All my photos (some of them are uploaded from flicker by other users) are in Category:Jakub T. Jankiewicz.

Those are my recently uploaded images:

Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Jakub T. Jankiewicz Valued images aren't about absolute quality but only relative quality. So your images will be approved as valued if they are the best depiction of the subject currently available on Commons. I think some of these have potential as quality images as well, but I don't usually judge there. Buidhe (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[]

To add my photos in categories Category:Mass grave in Bór, Category:Mass grave in Brzask, Category:Korona Kielce (shopping mall), Category:Domek Tkaczki, Category:Reenactment in Malbork are better than the others or the only images in the category. Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[]

@Jcubic: My point of view:

Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[]

@Podzemnik: those were just my last uploads, there are better photos I've taken (and uploaded to Commons), like those in categories I've linked. Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jcubic: You can't expect other users to browse all your uploads. I'd recommend to chose a few photos that you think represent your work the best and ask others for a review here. Kind regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[]

I can pick those:

I have also a lot of photos from Reenactments in Wolin (I was 3 times there are 3 categories) and Malbork it's hard to pick the best. Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Please take my reviews easy, I was mostly reviewing the photos for FP :) Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Possible Featured Picture?[edit]

Plac Europejski w Warszawie.jpg

I'm thinking about nominate this photo to FP. I like it very much, but I want to receive other opinions before nominating it. Does it have any chances for FP? What should I change? --LoMit (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[]

It's definitely a nice shot. The sky looks good, the windows of the buildings reflect the sky, and the colors are good. The main reason I don't think it would pass FP is composition. It's unclear what the main subject is. It seems like you framed it around the circular fountain in front and the BNP building in back, but that part of the fountain isn't especially attractive in the shade and the focus isn't as good on the buildings. If the whole public square is the subject (and I think that it is), the framing seems like it could be better (and the light -- which is very bright in the distance). There's also some imbalance to the composition because of the large building and large, partially cut off tree also on the left. I would be curious if you could reshoot it from a position further back, or off to the left/right, or when more of the square is evenly lit. This is all easier said than done, of course. :) In general, I think you should be happy with this shot. It may be a VI for that space. But the composition probably holds it back from FP. Curious also what others think. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks a lot for your opinion :). Now I can see more bad points of this picture. I agree that the main subject might be unclear. Maybe another time I will shoot a way better photo. Thanks --LoMit (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[]

I'm taking a few pictures with my Galaxy S20 FE and uploading them to be used on Commons and Wikipedia. What do you think about them?[edit]

I hardly process them, but I did use GIMP and darktable a few times. Definitely not a professional though.

Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 02:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Right, @Tetizeraz: these are not among the prettiest pictures. This page is intended for pictures that might go into one of the quality categories, and these don't have much hope for that. However, they can still be useful to illustrate articles.
  • The first, I see, already illustrates a transit station article. Humble, but useful.
  • The second might illustrate an article about its political topic, but of course that's a question for those who edit those political articles. I notice that its categories do not include geographic ones.
  • The third illustrates a building for which there is no article, but it can serve when it is needed. It could be improved by trimming the majority of the sky and parking lot, making the picture less tall.
  • As for the last, I don't know where it could be used. Perhaps it's because I don't understand the place.
Don't worry; most of our pictures are not now used in any article, nor have any known purpose at this time, but we don't know the future. Do try to get pictures that are relevant, or might become relevant, to a Wikipedia article or other use. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Photos are very useful and quality is good. May not succeed at QIC due to imperfections but these images are unique enough that they may well succeed at COM:VIC. And certainly there's encyclopedia value so I would encourage you to keep contributing. Buidhe (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Just want some critique![edit]

Hi! I overall just want your opinion on the following photographs. I'm thinking of putting the following up for quality images.

--Lectrician2 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]


Hi Lectrician2, here you have a first assessment of your drone photos.

  • First photo: good composition, but the sky is overexposed to the point of appearing totally white (we say "blown" in photography). The easiest way to avoid a blown overcast sky is to underexpose the photo and bring the light back in the digital lab.
  • Second photo: uninteresting composition, with all those white roofs in the foreground. The photo is overexposed making those roofs almost totally white.
  • Third photo: the best of the three in terms of composition. You should correct the slight ccw tilt. Also, there is some visible noise owing to the relatively poor quality of the drone camera.
  • Fourth photo: poor framing, due to the uninteresting roof in the foreground.
Two final comments: take your time to carefully choose the framing and composition. Pay attention to the lighting conditions: with an overcast sky, set the camera to correctly expose the subject (yes, it may be difficult with a drone). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]


MPI HSP46 2021-4-10 NEC Inbound.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawnmower500 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Lawnmower500, here is the assessment to your picture: Two problems causing an overall poor quality of the image:

  • White balance is incorrectly set, making the image bluish. This is not supposed to happen with your camera, if the white balance is set to automatics (unless it was manipulated in the digital lab);
  • The image is tilted.
  • Some parts are overexposed, appearing as almost totally white.
  • Image is not sharp enough. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Is this a likely FP?[edit]

Church of the Redeemer, Toronto, Canada.jpg

This is an example of an older building being completely overwhelmed by taller modern buildings behind it, but the building immediately behind it has quite interesting architecture, in my opinion, with the steps on top on both sides, so I find the composition very intriguing. The drawbacks are the gray sky and the mild-to-moderate degree of noise at full size. I'd love to have someone's views before I consider whether to nominate the photo at FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]