Commons:Photography critiques

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, 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 Callenges? 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.


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.

FPC standards for a crowded scene?[edit]

I've been taking a lot of pictures of protests in the NYC area and have been wondering what would make for an FPC-level protest picture. As I've found, they can be pretty challenging, being always moving/chaotic. I've been happy with a few I've taken and have seen them pop up in a lot of external media sources, so I wonder what people think about the FPC prospects for e.g. File:DACA protest Columbus Circle (90569).jpg or File:DACA protest Columbus Circle (90008).jpg? — Rhododendrites talk |  00:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

As documentation, both are excellent. As a composition, I think I prefer the second one. It has a very clear picture of a sign and the woman holding it. However, I think there are at least two reasons why it's unlikely to be promoted if nominated at FPC: (1) the crop of the woman on the right at the face is jarring; (2) the outside wall of that Trump Tower should be vertical. Just my 2 cents. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Thanks. I've made some tweaks to File:DACA protest Columbus Circle (90008).jpg based on the above, but it still doesn't quite feel like a FP. Ideally there wouldn't have been a crowd of people in front of them and behind me, so I could step back a bit and also get the other people in the foreground out of the way. :) This is why it seems difficult to think about what would an FP be in such a scene, and how to execute it without just happening to get really lucky (even then...). I also uploaded a new version of the other one, mainly because the glare on some of the signs bugged me. Also increased the color temperature a little. Not sure if I like that. Regardless, it doesn't change the composition. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I think the second one is better too but I agree with both of you; it'd be a tough FPC sell for this type of photo. I'm not sure what'd make an FP in a demonstration photo, buy one thing I'm sure of is you'd get complaints about 1) personality rights/people being identifiable and 2) the scene is too cluttered IOW "too much going on". PumpkinSky talk 23:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. I guess I'll just keep trying for a lucky magic shot when the crowds space out, the clouds part, and everything stands still for a second when 10' in front of me. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  23:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
When people demonstrate on the street, if they don't expect to be photographed, they're fools. I think that worrying about individual approval of a photograph under those circumstances is ridiculous, and I also doubt it has anything to do with American laws. But yeah, I think with this kind of shot, you have to get lucky. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I totally agree but you know someone will complain about it, just like the subway photo we just had at FPC, people looking right into the camera and their consent was questioned. PumpkinSky talk 01:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I understand that a bit more, as you're a captive audience on the subway. However, it's a public place. Anyway, I agree that someone would object, because they do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Dark patches at the seams of a panorama[edit]

Manhattan at night south of Rockefeller Center panorama (11263p).jpg

The sky in this panorama... I noticed it after I was done editing. It would seem the edges of the frame were darker then the middle. What would the best way to fix this be? I tried playing a bit with the healing brush/clone stamp, but haven't found anything that looks natural yet. Would rather not go back to the beginning of the process (to fix where I should've in the first place) at this point. Suggestions? — Rhododendrites talk |  05:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm certainly not an expert in this kind of editing, but here's what I'd try: As it seems to be mostly a matter of brightness, likely due to the lens vignetting at the borders, I'd go for the dodging tool or similar. Use a very large brush with very soft edges, set the tool to low opacity, and go across the relevant sections multiple times. That should make the results much more … uhm … organic. Photoshop pros would probably do something similar with "adjustment layers" as they are non-destructive and it seems to be easier to make corrections if you went to far somewhere – but as I haven't totally understood how they work yet, I can't really give you instructions for that. If there's a good lens correction profile with vignetting correction available for your lens, it would probably make sense to use that before stitching next time ;-) Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 09:01, 2 February 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.

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)