Commons:Photography critiques/February 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

Holiday Inn Express, Daytona Beach Shores

Holiday Inn Express Daytona Beach Shores (5411717409).jpg

I would appreciate an evaluation to see if this image could qualify for promotion to VI, QI or FP. Although it was loaded from Flickr, it is my photo. Thank you for your time. Gamweb (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

  • To me, vertical perspective distortion. Too little size (1,024 × 768 pixels), can't be QI.-- 22:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Too tight crop at bottom --— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)

It is a quite attractive, sharp image, reasonably exposed (although it could be brightened a little with little loss of detail) and proper colour balance. But it probably wouldn't get through QI or FP due to its low resolution - 1024x768 is quite small for Commons images, we like them as big as possible to allow for the widest variety of uses. The minimum normally acceptable in QI & FP is 2 mega pixels (so something 1650x1250 minimum). For a static object like a building (that is not liable to run away and isn't bending in the wind), a much higher resolution tends to be demanded (people take multiple closeup shots of different parts of the building and stitch them together into one large image (eg see Hugin)).
Another aspect that would worry QI and FP reviewers would be the perspective distortion that makes the image look as though it tappers towards the top or leans back away from the camera - quite a normal effect of human vision too, but one which can be easily 'corrected' with digital photographs (and generally results is a more 'pleasing' image, vertical lines looking vertical not sloped).
Framing of images is not my strong point, but I expect that the half tree on the right and street light protruding from the left, should be removed. Clearing the cars out of the car park would probably keep some reviewers happy (but not the hotel management :-)
FP reviewers wouldn't be excited by the subject (just another un-exceptional hotel), so probably not worth going there. VI might be interested if it is a good example of something (this style of architecture perhaps?). If you have a high resolution version and 'correct' the perspective distortion I think it may reasonably pass QI.
-- Tony Wills (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)