Commons:Photography critiques

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.



Archive


What do you think about this?[edit]

Cranial imaging of a FFI patient. In the MRI, there are not normal signals in the bilateral frontoparietal subcortical area. MRA showed smaller distal branches of cerebral arteries.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessMaster7734 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 15 April 2018‎ (UTC)

Bay trail[edit]

San Francisco Bay Trail Riders

Comments on this as a possible QI? Thanks. en:User:DonFB

Update: I boldly nominated for QI. en:User:DonFB

Quality image[edit]

Mahmoud Hosseini Zad

Is it good enough to be nominated for Quality images? or could it be with some help from Photography workshop ? SlowManifesto (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi SlowManifesto,

The image seems to suffer from some noticeable motion blur. This would probably prevent it from being promoted to QI, and unfortunately, it's not typically something that can be repaired with post-processing. It might fare better at VI, which has more forgiving requirements for technical quality. Feel free to ask if you have any further questions! –Juliancolton | Talk 01:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. SlowManifesto (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@SlowManifesto: That's a very nice portrait imho, but you might want to fix the date (pretty sure this wasn't taken on Jan 1st 2000, 00:42:42 ;-)). I agree that it's probably a bit too soft for QI standards, but I don't think that's due to motion blur (no double lines visible). I'd rather suspect the lens: with a consumer-grade telephoto zoom like this shot wide open, you can expect to see some softness when pixel-peeping. Doesn't really matter at normal magnifications, though. --El Grafo (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Quite a good portrait, even at ISO 2000. Yann (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


Please critique the picture[edit]

Konark Temple wheels

Dear Friends,

This is a photograph of the famous Konark Temple wheels situated in the city of Konark, Orissa, India.

This is a UNESCO world heritage site and I took this picture and converted it into Black and White.

I would be grateful if you can critique it and suggest its current quality and how further the shot could be improved upon.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Stone_wheel_engraved_in_the_13th_century_built_Konark_Sun_Temple_in_Orissa%2C_India.jpg

Thanks in advance.

Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sharpness of portraits[edit]

Hi, I am quite disappointed (but not so surprised) but reviews of my portraits. These are certainly sharp enough to print posters. I uploaded a few RAW files. Could these be improved? Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick note: The last one appears to have some motion blur (double lines along e.g. the teeth), so that would be difficult to fix. The other ones are about as sharp as you can expect from this kind of lens. I don't have the time to play with them right now, but I think it should be possible to get some improvements through careful processing. --El Grafo (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Transsib trip photos, potential QIs/VIs[edit]

Hi,

I have recently gotten back to uploading photos from my trip to Commons, this time quite a few from last year's Transsiberian railway trip. I guess some of them might be QI/VI-worthy, but I am very reluctant to self-nominate. Maybe one of you wants to scroll through my recent uploads and nominate a few? Would really motivate me to add more from other trips too.

--AlexanderKlink (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible FP?[edit]

View of the central structure of Angkor Wat

I really love this composition, but I'm unsure whether to nominate it to FPC and thought I'd ask for some reactions here, first. I think the strengths of the photo are obvious, but I could see objections to the degree of sharpness, considering the moderate size of the photo (it's not small but not huge), and some people might object to the people in the photo, especially the woman taking a cell phone pic of another woman in the center of the photo. So what do you think - worth nominating at FPC or not? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Beautiful image, but of course the main subject is these ladies taking pictures of themselves. So, is it a nice feature ? IMO no, these people ruin the beautiful landscape, unfortunately. They don't bring anything interesting, just they're here while they shouldn't (I mean for us). I wouldn't support as FP but perhaps other reviewers will find something special. I think these women could have been welcome if they were doing something different than shooting with their camera. Here their action is disturbing -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for giving your take on the photo. It's a pity that the presence of people at such a major tourist attraction might mean that it's impossible for there to be an FP of this view. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You could always try to nominate it and see if there is a consensus. Sometimes I see people disagree with what I thought was an acceptable QI/FP level.--Peulle (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: I guess the "problem" is that this one is an architecture image with "disturbing" people. The exact same scene could work very differently, had it been photographed as a portrait of 2 people with an interesting background. Longer focal length, tighter framing, more "compression" … But anyway, I also think it might be worth a try. I I'm not sure I would support, but I probably would not oppose this one at FPC. --El Grafo (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I will think about it. I appreciate your thoughts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Is this a good bird picture?[edit]

@Daniel Case: @Basile Morin: @Ikan Kekek: @Peulle: Please, could you four help review my image? I look forward to hearing some constructive criticism from COM members I look up to! GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

- Do you think the last four pictures are of good enough quality to be nominated for COM:VIC? GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
VIC would have to do with whether the pictures are best in scope. In other words, that would have to be the best yellow-vented bulbul picture on Commons, one of the American white pelican pictures would have to be the best on Commons, etc. I'll have a look with a mind toward QIC, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, in my opinion, the bulbul pic is probably not a QI. I think the bird is too small a percentage of the photo and that its feathers don't have enough definition, especially in the highlights. I like File:American white pelican.jpg a lot more. I like the composition, though someone might complain that there should be more lead room in front of it. If people pixel-peep, they may complain about color noise. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
File:American white pelican 2.jpg has blown highlights. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The last two photos look like QIs to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Thank you! Is there any way I could reduce the color noise of File:American white pelican.jpg? Also, if I nominated the last two, would you support it? :P GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Should I nominate File:American white pelican.jpg for QI or VI, or neither? GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Ikan. The quality of the 2 last ones is okay, but the crops are not very nice (not well centered). The first image is too noisy. The second one is not sharp. And the 3rd one is overexposed -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Currently none of them is fit for VI, as they all fail criterion 5 (= lack of Commons:Geocoding). --El Grafo (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
* @El Grafo: My camera doesn't have a geocoding feature, is there any way I could add that with external software? GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@GerifalteDelSabana: Yep, there are several methods for doing that. Try Commons:Locator-tool, for example. Commons:Geocoding has some more options available … --El Grafo (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • My opinion from left to right: Image 1 could be a QI. I've seen worse being promoted in the past and given the resolution and distance I'd probably vote in favour of it. Image 2 could be a VI contender (but I think there may be some images in the category with a better angle) but looks too unsharp for a QI. Image 3 is too bright - the highlights are almost if not completely blown. Image 4 could be a QI, especially since the head and neck are sharp. You might want to consider cropping some of the top. Image 5 is a QI, although check for CA.--Peulle (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Peulle: Thanks for the feedback! I've also noticed the purple fringes, and I've been doing some research on how to remove them. Sadly I don't have a UV filter yet (costs $50 here), would take some time for me to save up. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
A program like PhotoShop can remove them in camera raw by using the "remove chromatic aberrations" feature. I'm sure some other software programs have that too.--Peulle (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
It passes QIC, I think.--Peulle (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment - I couldn't advise you on how to reduce color noise, but I'm sure other folks will have advice for you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey GerifalteDelSabana, I just came across this discussion and as an avid bird photographer myself I'd like to offer you a piece of advice that helped me taking better bird pictures. Please consider getting lower to the ground when taking pictures of water birds. I've described the reasons for why this will improve images in a blog post. I hope you don't mind me joining this conversation and I wish you all the best of luck for your future pictures. All the best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

* @Frank Schulenburg: Thank you for the suggestion! Unfortunately, the place was a wildlife conservatory and I was the lowest I could get! I'll try to get a better angle if I ever get the chance to visit a non-barricaded location. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


* The image passed QIC, what can I do to bring it to FP-level? @Ikan Kekek: @Peulle: GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion: nothing. That image is as good as it's going to get. FP is not just about technical quality either, but about the personal opinions of the reviewers re whether they feel it has enough of a "wow factor". I'd just try to nominate it and see what happens. Maybe you'll get some more feedback.--Peulle (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Peulle:. You've been of great help. I'll do it when I get home. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Two more bird pictures, one more opportunity to improve and learn![edit]

@Basile Morin: @Ikan Kekek: @Peulle:

Here's another two more pictures, possible FPC/QIC? Anything I could improve on?

If I'm too annoying, tell me, I'll stop tagging you.

GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

  • The execution of the photos are fine, but I'm afraid you'll never get a QI with 1/4000 sec and ISO 6400. You need to wait for a sunny day at take at say ISO 800 max otherwise the photos are too grainy. 1/4000 sec should oonly be for flying animals. Choose, say, 1/800 sec on a windy day and try for F8 for a good depth of field. Get the light over your shoulder so sunlight is falling on the bird's feathers. Wait till the bird is in profile and focus the camera on the eye. Ideally you want to be at the same elevation as the bird - not looking up and no looking down. Try to get close enough sto avois much cropping. Background should be natural, so the metal netting or whatever it is ruins the first image. For VI these days you need to identify subspecies, but your sparrow wouldn't make it I'm afraid. Best wishes, Charles
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment I don't think they'll succeed at FP because the light is fairly ordinary and the birds aren't doing anything special (birds in flight are more exciting). I do think they are QI quality, though, since the resolution is high and the sharpness is pretty good. The left especially I'd promote right away. The sparrow pic is a bit noisy so that might be improved with a little bit of noise reduction.--Peulle (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
-@Peulle: What kind of noise? Color noise or luminance noise? GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Normal light noise, yes.--Peulle (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- How about VI for the right picture? The current one is quite low-res. (original picture is slightly out of focus too.) GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't matter; VI is about which picture displays best as a thumbnail in articles, so the current one is better.--Peulle (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment - I disagree on the photo on the left. I think it's not sharp enough for QI. Because the sparrow is a smaller bird, I think it might be a QI, but I'm not sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

MG B GT[edit]

1973 MG B GT 1.8 Front.jpg

Slightly disappointed with the result of this car photo I took. It didn't help it began raining in mid process and my hair got blown in my face. (Drawback of having long hair). I'm not particularly sure if it did came out blurry or not. I photograph it in a way so it could be promoted to QI but I'm doubtful if it sufficient to be one. I tried to fix the problem and just end up making the image too sharp. What do you think? --Vauxford (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a QI regular, so I'm not sure about the requirements on sharpness there. Doesn't look too bad to me though. However, you'll probably want to give it a bit of a counter-clockwise rotation to get the fence in the background stand up straight. --El Grafo (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)