Commons:Photography critiques/April 2011

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

February 2011

Some computer adapters

Adapter 2011-02-27.jpg

I'd be grateful for a feedback on this picture of a couple of computer adapters - Useful for the encyclopedia? Maybe a candidate for QI? Thanks, --S nova (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Hmm, I think a bit too noisy for QI, maybe it would pass on VI under the scope 'Computer adapters' or something similar. And I think it would be more useful if you'd name each one, what both the male and female parts are. Either way, it certainly has its place on EnWiki; I've already added it to an article. Good work. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the feedback! I've added some (hopefully useful) annotations. As far as the noise goes, I agree (thanks for the hint, leaves me a bit puzzled as I used the noise reduction feature of my D90). When I've time, I'll see if I can do something about it with Photoshop elements or the GIMP.--S nova (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't find it too noisy, but it is lacking a bit in sharpness. -- King of Hearts (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Now slightly (well, hopefully ...) sharpened & de-noised. --S nova (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

December 2010

Zea mays under a microscope

Zea mays(312, 5x).JPG

Is there any chance to have this image promoted as VI, QI or even FP or is there a chance for achieving this aim with some processing? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it could easily become a VI, but it has far too bad compression artefacts for any other chosen status. No processing method I know can fix that sufficiently. Next time, try increasing the image quality your camera produces, if possible. — Yerpo Eh? 07:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be a lot better if this was shot RAW. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I do not know any digital compact camera that was was able to shoot RAW back in 2004-2005, with the exception of some CHDK-able Canon products... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)