Commons:Photography critiques/April 2007

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

Taj Mahal[edit]

Agra01.jpg

  • I personally find it beautifull, could it make it to FP? I mean on "grain", "balance" and stuff on the technical side which is still largely a mistery to me... --Diligent 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Grand Canyon[edit]

250px

  • The first version of this had stitching problems, so I restitched it. Please tell me if you see any problems with it. --Digon3 15:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't see any stitching errors that I'd swear to, but it looks to be made of three photos (whereas I think the description says 4). About 1/4 of the way across (left to right) there are some rather indistinct areas from the middle back to far edge of the canyon - could just be atmospheric haze, probably blending .... About 2/3rds of the way across (just after the central band of cloud) there is a vertical band of deeper blue sky which is more apparent in the thumbnail views than at 100% (if you scroll the image sideways back and forth at 50% magnification, it stands out) - a blending thing rather than stitching issue. I'd say both were minor imperfections :-)
Does it ever rain there? - I wonder what the colours are like after the air has been washed clean by a decent downpour? :-) --Tony Wills 12:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It has to rain sometime, but I was only there for a day. --Digon3 15:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Opera House Hannover, Germany[edit]

H Opera House PDRI.jpg H Opera House.jpg

  • I need some feedback on this pic. I have a little write-up on the steps to create a pic like this here. Too fake? Obvious flaws? I can upload the unmodified original too. --Dschwen 16:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Unmodified version is on the right. --Dschwen 16:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Chaenomeles japonica[edit]

Chaenomeles japonica

Hi, I have not tried this critique page before but I have tried to take some images of different plants and flowers and would like to ask you about what I can do better with this one ? I mostly tried to use a relatively low F number fo blur the background a bit, though this blurred the left and right parts of the branch. Perhaps I should have tried to hold the camera more parallell to the branch. /Daniel78 22:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I think the F number was too low, an important part of the subject (the leaves at left) is unfocused. The "pano type" framing is interesting but the idea is spoiled by the unfocused leaves at left and a blurred branch at right. Did you try other crops? - Alvesgaspar 22:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I did not find any better crops really, if I just make it square without the bad focus the image gets a bit boring I think. Maybe I should just try to get it all in focus the next time :) /Daniel78 19:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the flowers, and I could live with the leaves being unfocused, but I admit, I don't like the background. The out of focus but still very visible branches distract. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Seagull landing in water[edit]

Hi guys, I want to know if this is FP nomination worthy or not, given that I ask the photographer from Flickr for a hires image? Thanks, --Spundun 22:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There are so few quality images coming from India, I'd love to give this one every chance it's got. :) --Spundun
Difficult to tell what quality a hires version would be, but exposure looks good (not a lot of over-exposed white features). So long as the focus is sharp on a hires version I think it could make featured picture. --Tony Wills 00:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like a good candidate. But of course a larger version must be made available. Alvesgaspar 09:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Alright, got a larger version and posted as an FP candidate. Although with the larger version, the colors look less vibrant even at the same screen size, can someone explain that phenomenon? Thanks for the comments --Spundun 06:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Doesn't it look like that because the low-res version has been strongly sharpened? --che 23:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah thats what someone else told me also, on irc. Do you know if the new version also has some kind of artifacts? Where do I spot them? And where do they come from? --Spundun 00:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    Hope this helps. Artifacts --Digon3 23:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for the link, I had gotten there earlier myself. Is there a way to get rid of that noise? I mean some photoshop tool or something that can get rid of that noise? Thanks, --Spundun 07:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
maybe the smaller version was resized using a bi-cubic algorithm, that can give this impression. About artifacts, it's not that easy, since you can't recover information once you have removed it completely with a heavy compression. All you could try to do is to re-create such information manually, using tools like "cloning", local blur or draw it yourself with the brush tool. But don't expect to get great results. Alessio Damato 08:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Las Médulas landscape[edit]

Las Médulas landscape

What do you think about it? I made it stitching 6 pictures, it shows the whole landscape of Las Médulas. Do you think it is worth being candidate as featured/quality picture? thanks for your comments Alessio Damato 14:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There are compression artifacts visible at the bottom and some parts of the image are overexposed. Apart from technical quality I'd say your choice of the view is excellent. --che 16:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Like che said, some parts of the image are overexposed and compression artifacts are visible at the bottom. Some parts also seem too dark and big rock is too close to the top of the picture. If you could retake the pictures, I would recommend HDR for this photo and a slightly wider and taller panorama. I think then it would be worth being candidate as a featured/quality picture but right now there are too many technical problems to be either. --Digon3 14:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thanks for your suggestions. I can't retake the picture because I was there on holiday, but I will use your suggestions in the future. I made it with 6 different pics, creating a wider panorama would need even more pictures, I don't think the processing power of my computer would have been enough. I'd like to use HDR, but I can't and I wouldn't know where to start from. Do you know any free software I could use? the main problem is the perfect alignment of different pictures, because I can put them together using different weights with any program (I would use Matlab because I have some experience with it, but there are several choices I think). Alessio Damato 17:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
A website that helped me with HDR is here. Radiance,Photoshop CS2, and Photomatix are programs that create HDR images, but Photomatix has a free trial but costs $99, Photoshop CS2 cost around $600, and I don't know about Radiance. If you have problems with processing power you could use autostitch. It will take quite a while, but I don't think your computer will freeze up. --Digon3 22:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
searching around and making some tests, I think I solved all my doubts about HDR. I need some practising, but now I can manage HDR images. I have been using autopano and hugin for aligning, qtpsfgui and cinepaint for creating the HDR and tonemapping. The results are good, and they are all free software! Alessio Damato 08:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)