Commons:Photography critiques/March 2008

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.

Fire Sparks

Fire Sparks.JPG

  • I took this Picture at an easter fire in southern Styria, Austria, and would like to have some feedback on it. I know that it is a bit noisy and that a lens with bigger apperture would have helped... but what do you think apart from that? Thank you!--Rampensau 13:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • In this case (movement fire), it must be dynamism of fire. So I think that you have to notice a composition than above all. This one is having large black part on the bottom, but I think it needn't for this. You would have to have idea what : you want to showing what to peoples. Hmmm... Sorry to not enough explain. _Fukutaro 13:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Seattle panorama from Puget Sound

Seattle Bainbridge ferry1 2008-02-24.jpg

  • The photos for this panorama have been taken from a moving vessel, and although they have been taken in rapid succession, numerical feedback from the stitch process tells me that there still is some parallax error in there. The stitching programs (hugin0.7beta and enblend3.1) make an effort in placing seams in good locations. After having looked myself (and corrected one spot only), I wonder whether others spot any further visible misalignment in the image. -- Klaus with K 13:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, it is challenging to stitch a pano taken from a moving vessel. I have tried that too. As I see it you have some problems near the horizon on the left hand side. Especially around the orange crane an the apex of some towers, where there are are some smudged out area, which are normally a symptom of bad alignment. When I do these sort of things I avoid having control points in the foreground, like on rock in the sea, as these give rise to large parallax errors. Here I let the smart enblender to what it can instead. It has to handle the waves anyway, which change appearance from photo to photo, which I think it does quite well. I would spend some time on the careful selection of new control points at well-defined structures near the horizon. But I guess you already do this... you have learned me all I know about stitching in Hugin anyway... -- Slaunger 14:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Slaunger, I put control points pretty much on any feature of the skyline, so that will include items at varying distances, although no close object (where there is water anyway). The mismatch in alignment is a few pixels at most, compare that to fractional pixels I usually strive for. Now looking at it again I find a few more locations where the smart blending did not work 100%. Maybe I run enblend again on images pairs with diagnostic output switched on, then check at the seam locations and possibly retouch critical areas in gimp. Thanks. -- Klaus with K 15:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I did not really expect I could could teach you anything with respect to Hugin. Your approach seems like a good (and time-consuming) path to proceed along. -- Slaunger 19:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Slaunger, an extra pair of eyes does really help. Doing the diagnostics was not too time-consuming, and I found four areas which required minor gimping. I uploaded a new image version. How about the image in general? Sunshine without clouds might look even nicer, but then not bad at all for a one-day visit to Seattle in February, several locals told me. -- Klaus with K 12:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Midwestern farming towns

Stewart, Indiana - Elevator.png Marshfeld, Indiana elevators.png

  • Lately I've been taking photos of some of the small farming towns in my area to accompany their articles in Wikipedia. (Grain elevators are often the main subjects.) I've never had any photographic training, but I'd really like to learn, and to try to identify my weakest areas so I can get better. How do these look? What are the main things I should work on improving? Thanks! Huwmanbeing 12:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I live for piano

I live for piano.jpg

  • I don't have any specific question but I would know what do you think about this photo: which are the weak points? Which attributes we can consider artistic points and which are the real imperfections? How should I improve it? Thanks --sNappy 14:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not a photographer at all, but I am a bit disturbed by the composition, in the sense that the objects too regularly distributed : it does not give the impression of a random, natural mess, and I don't feel this distribution is nicely balanced either. It looks a little bit like a clean spot, with objects added artificially. Besides, the piano and pianist are deliberately centered, but not perfectly... (Here the chair may be disturbing). It is only my feeling, of course. Eusebius 16:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with everythinh Eusebius said. Also, the most important elements in a photo of a pianism should be the hands and the face (for expression). None of these are shown. Alvesgaspar 16:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What about quality, light, exposure... ?--sNappy 11:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe that is 'cracked contrast'. I seem to as -- the Man who is a real dolt, but it's real just that he loves playing piano --. Some of objects in this image, they showing his personality, I guess. But this image is not encyclopedic. If you have idea that be more artistic photograph, you have to pay attention to a lot of elements. What? Who? Why? Where? How? showing to people. _Fukutaro 11:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Branches and cranes

Grus canadensis northbound.jpg

  • Any thoughts? I'm considering desaturating the branches—I like the way it looks when I do that. Also, should I lighten the dark spots on the branches? (They're already quite a bit lighter than in the original.) JerryFriedman 05:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I feel the coldness from this picture. But, as for only composition, it is not good branches that shading a flock, I think. But I guess more better with that it would be made what connected with a flock. e.g. : the blanches of birds had stood, step of from foreground to background, more colored blanches and sky, more well-modulated lightness, or etc... I'm sorry for negative opinion. _Fukutaro 11:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
      • No need to apologize—negative comments are very helpful. But I have to apologize, since I don't understand your comments except the one about the branches in front of the flock and the one about "more colored".
      • I've changed it: is it an improvement? Or was the old one better? JerryFriedman 23:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
        • the branches in front of the flock : I seem to it's distractive composition. Especially part of which branch is top of the birds.
        • more colored : This image is only gray on the whole. If sky is blue or blanch is brown or others is some color, its more nice view I guess. Color is contributing to composition and easily view. But these may shows different feeling to differently people.
        • I look like the changed version is more well than before version. --Fukutaro 14:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Side-issue: I recommend to categorize your photo. -- Slaunger 22:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Mountain Chickadee

Poecile gambeli2.jpg

  • Too bad there's so little detail in the black throat—and I'm not even sure whether the gray on the upper breast (below the black) is part of the bird or some kind of artifact. Other than that, any comments? I'm trying to learn GIMP. JerryFriedman 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I think not too bad detail (and not much well detail). I feel, tip of her tail is unforcus, glowed dead leaf(?) at the upper, slight visible Image noise on the whole and a bit unsharp detail is caused by tele-lens. You could reduce the Image noise with use to lower ISO. And above all, great winter photograph! It is depicted cold very well. :) _Fukutaro 14:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)