Commons:Photography critiques/March 2007

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

Book of Isaiah[edit]

Full Book of Isaiah 2006-06-06.jpg

  • I posted this on Commons:Quality images candidates (a first for me). It got "shot down" there. The only thing is the reason it was shot down was because the narrow depth of field used. I deliberately wanted the image to look like that. I was just wondering does anyone else think the depth of field is wrong or takes away from the image?--Trounce 14:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The unfocused bottom definitely takes away from the image. It was the first thing I saw, instead of the caption Isaiah like you intended. If you deliberately want the image to look like that I would suggest a slightly wider depth of field so it isn't so blurry at the bottom. --Digon3 15:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If the main subject is the book, then I think it should be perfectly focused, which isn't really difficult if we use a proper lens and exposure settings. I also don't like the crop, why was it made this way? I suspect that aesthetical reasons might have been preponderant here but the result doesn't seem very pleasant to the eye. For a simple and common subject like this, and with controlled conditions, we have to be perfect! - Alvesgaspar 19:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the input.Its great to have a place where you can get feedback on a photo. Thanks again--Trounce 11:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The diagonal composition and the crop are strong. The concept of blurring both the foreground and background is a valid and useful technique for calling attention to the main subject of the photo, which seems to be the title "Isaiah" (not the entire book) as a symbol of the book. However, the characteristics of the foreground blur and the background blur are quite different. The background blur looks quite natural, but the foreground looks artifial. To me, it's unsettling enough that because of the foreground blur I don't like the photo. I'd prefer it with a sharper (but not fully focused) foreground. Fg2 05:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

BiodegradablePlasticUtensils.jpg

  • I saw this image and thought it was very striking. I was considering nominating it to be featured, but I haven't nominated a picture before and am not very familiar with the standards for featured pictures. Any comments on whether or not this would make a decent candidate or what could be done (if anything) to get it there? ShadowHalo 12:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I think there is a good chance of this image to get featured. I would suggest to nominate it for quality images as a start. Perhaps some minor noise reduction could be done to improve this image. norro 19:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, I can't nominate it at COM:QIC because I didn't take the picture, so I may as well nominate the noise-removed version for featured and see what happens. Thanks for your input. ShadowHalo 18:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Two cat photos on 'pedia[edit]

Hey, if anyone gets a chance could you crit my two photos on Wikipedia? Cheers, Rawling 12:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Mazy: The grass, blocking the face, adds an air of mystery. The focus is exactly on the irises of the eyes. The grazing light across the face is very nice. The background, though, which is bright, contrasty and strongly textured, distracts the viewer and detracts from the photo.
  • Lucy: Beautiful pose. Pleasing cropping. Perfect amount of exposure. At highest resolution, it becomes apparent that the focus is not exactly on the eyes, but at medium or lower sizes, the eyes are sharp enough, and the color is phenomenal.


Fg2 00:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for those :-) shame I don't get to work with those two more often. Rawling 12:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

some red flowers[edit]

Au tas botanic 1381.jpg

This photo looks pretty good at extremely low resolutions, but is very very very very blurry. It there any way I could make it a little sharper? --Wj32 08:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • well of course there are tools and methods with which you can to sharpen pictures. But you can never change a really unsharp picture to a sharp one. There is simply information missing. Unfortunatelly i would say that your picture is such a case.--AngMoKio 12:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Zygmunt's Column at sunset[edit]

Zygmunt`s Column at sunset.JPG

I am new to taking photos, but I am quite proud of this one. Do you think it's good enough quality to be nominated for some Commons quality/featured content?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think so, for the following reasons: i)The composition is not interesting, with the main subject centered; ii) Vertical lines do not appear all as vertical and parallel to each other; iii) the silhoutte is out of focus, which is a capital sin in a "contre jour" photo. Night shots are quite difficult for a beginner! - Alvesgaspar 13:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with Alvesgaspar --Simonizer 16:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Bryce Canyon Amphitheater Panorama[edit]

Bryce Canyon Hoodoos Amphitheater Panorama.jpg

  • Is there any way to improve this in terms of contrast, saturation, or stitching? --Digon3 16:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Might be time to get a new camera. It would not be wasted on your photographic abilities. As for the pic I think you could have used more segments in the pano to compensate for the mediocre resolution of the camera. What do you use for stitching? --Dschwen 16:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I used Hugin and Enblend. The reason it is so small is probably because I didn't optimize the dimensions in Hugin (my camera can take pictures at 2272x1704). I have upload a larger version. --Digon3 02:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A composite of three Willie Wagtails[edit]

Wag tail composite downsampled.jpg

It's obviously bad that their tails are cut. The birds are very sharp except for their tails and the beak of the bird on the right, how much does this detract from the image? The other query I have is, Can anyone point out signs of where I stitched them together so I can fix it. --Benjamint444 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Your composit bird pictures are well done, but I wonder whether people may assume they represent actual bird interactions and not realise they are artistic composits - ie the birds are not interacting naturally with each other - would you ever see this scene if wagtails perch side by side ? (General question: Is there room in the JPG meta data format to note that images are composits, maybe the comment area? - just in case the picture gets separated from the description?). Ok my comments may not be relevant to the artistic merit of the picture! :-) The out of focus tails are fine as the interest is in the expressions on the face of the birds. I don't really notice the stitching, apart from the lack of detail on the wooden rail between the birds, and the misplaced shadow of the rightmost bird (obviously a mirror image). :-) --Tony Wills 02:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the advice regarding metadata but i'm not sure how to carry it out, I was surprised you mentioned shadows though (I didn't flip any of the images and they were all taken within an hour or so of eachother so I never even checked to see if shadows were OK) having looked though I can see what you mean. It must just be an illusion because that is the genuine shadow. --Benjamint 06:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, my bad assumption :-). I suppose they were taken about midday (the real noon, ignoring daylight saving)- the first two, half an hour before, the third half an hour after noon ? There's a couple of open-source programs for dealing to exif data (mainly fixing wrong date/times) for Linux (eg jhead), I suppose lots of other programs do it too, but not sure which. --Tony Wills 11:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I am using a program called exifer. You can download it here: [1] --Simonizer 12:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
A small discussion of EXIF data : [2] --Tony Wills 00:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

San Francisco Panorama[edit]

San Francisco at Sunset Panorama.jpg

  • Could someone who is better at editing than I am try to fix the sagging on the two sides? --Digon3 21:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
When taking photos intended for panoramic stitching, better use more overlap, one third of the image width as guideline. And if you are into panoramas, better use some specific software for that. I have really good experience with hugin and enblend. No time right now, but maybe in some days I could provide you with a raw stitch which you then could work on with a standard photo editor for the finishing touches.--Klaus with K 16:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Tried it myself with hugin sprinkling control points generously onto the high-rise building and introducing 3 vertical lines. I am using rectangular projection and allowing Barrel parameter for left stitch and "Everything" to optimise for the right stitch. Maybe the wavy impression would have been there with cylindrical projection?
SanFrancisco panoramahelp3.jpg
SanFrancisco panoramahelp4.jpg

Still not fully happy as the boat trail bends on the left photo, whereas on the right one the photo midpoint is way off the horizon and the optimisation goes for a strong tele lense 268mm equivalent. Also the water shows brightness differences, needs some photoshopping or vignette correction before feeding into enblend, but such things tend to happen with minimal overlap - and can be corrected. (more on your talk page)--Klaus with K 23:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Bluff knoll[edit]

Bluff knoll 01 gnangarra.jpgBluff knoll 02 gnangarra.jpg


March 2007[edit]

  • I'm not sure how these would go on the english wikipedia FPC since the body is cut off, the left-most one is currently on Com:qic and Com:fpc and seems to be going OK, But I would particularly like opinions on wether they're too dark or use of flash too obvious etc. and, of course, the merits of each one. --Benjamint444 03:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • com:fpc nomination [[3]]