Commons:Photography critiques/May 2007

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

May 2007[edit]

User:Lcarsdata[edit]

I have uploaded a few images to the commons (not very many however) and would like to know what is wrong with them. Below is a gallery with the images and some comments I made about them. I have only picked the ones I feel are the best out of the ones I have taken as many of the others are complete rubbish. Thanks. Lcarsdata 08:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

2: how could you get such a noisy image?! did you use a very high ISO?!
3: good picture, but I have two suggestions to improve it: (1) the cake in the foreground is cropped on the right, I would have placed it so that it was fully inside the picture (2) the light is too strong, so most of the picture is "burnt" (i.e. it's just flat white). I guess you took it next to a window. My suggestion to fix it is to close the curtains of the window (if you have any), this way the main direction of the light will be the same but it won't be so strong. The curtain could change the color of the light: use manual white balance to invert it.
4: the picture is perfect, unfortunately the subject wasn't that good.

Alessio Damato 15:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

a3_nm's photos[edit]

Hi, I would be glad to know what you think of the photos I uploaded on Commons, and especially the following:

I am new here, so don't hesitate to tell me if they are not valuable enough to be acceptable on Commons, or anything. I look forward to your constructive criticism, thanks in advance. --A3 nm 21:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

about Image:Chicago night.jpg, the right part of the picture is perfect, but on the left there are some odds... I think you took it through a glass and you can see the reflection of the lights of the room where you were. Those lights are too strong and "burn" a part of the picture. Moreover I don't like the tree on the foreground. Without the three and the reflected lights, it would have been a very good picture. Alessio Damato 15:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I did not take the picture through a glass, but there was a very strong light source on the left, which probably was the cause of the lights that you observed.
I just uploaded another version of this shot, without the tree and problematic light source, it's Image:Chicago night_2.jpg. Do you prefer this one?
Thank you very much for your feedback! --A3 nm 17:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
maybe the strong light was reflected by the tree, creating that strange effect. The other version is much better :-) Alessio Damato 21:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Do you think that the other version could become a QI? Would you have any improvements to suggest?
Thanks again for your feedback! --A3 nm 05:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't say anything about the QI, I'm not expert enough. You can try, in any case you'll get more feedback. If you want to improve the picture even further, you could use HDRI, this way the light sources won't look "burnt". Alessio Damato 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. HDRI looks fine, but I'm afraid I did not use bracket mode for this shot, and since I'm living in Strasbourg, France, I might not have much opportunities to re-shoot this one :-(. I went ahead and submitted it to QI: Commons:Quality images candidates [edit: it got rejected...]. Thanks again for your helpful criticism, do you have any comments on Image:Campfire closeup.jpg? --A3 nm 17:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

guillom's photos[edit]

Hello. I would like to get some critiques on some of my best (according to me :) photos. I am not used to Commons:Quality images, so if you think some of them could become QI, please let me know. And in any case, I would really appreciate constructive comments :) guillom 13:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Press photos (French Politicians)[edit]

Planes[edit]

since nobody replied to you, yet, I'll say something. Don't get offended, I just want to try to give you some tips:

  • 4 yes you are right, there is too much light in the background because you directly took the picture in front of the source of light. You had better to choose a view avoiding the direct light (if it was possible in that particular condition)
  • 6 good picture, I don't think it was possible to do better, but unfortunately the main subject, Sarkozy, is blurred as well. The background is much more blurred, but a picture can't be considered perfect if the main subject is out of focus.
  • 7good angle, but the main subject is darker than the surroundings. It's not your fault: it is a difficult picture because the outer part of the air plane gets more light from outside and it is highly reflective. Possible solutions are:
  1. take a picture with a different angle avoiding the outer part
  2. take an overexposed picture cropping the outer part (that should look "burnt")
  3. use HDR (best solution)

It is possible to improve the existing picture with a gamma correction (using gamma>1), but it would heavily increase the quantization noise, so it's not a solution. Moreover, I don't like the blurred chair in the foreground: it also looks brighter than the main subject.

  • 9, 10, 11, 12 in all of them the main subject (the air plane) is darker than the bright surrounding sky. They all can be improved with gamma correction, at the expense of more noise.

To sum up, your pictures have very good angles, but you should take more care of where the light comes from. For non-moving objects, HDR can help a lot. Alessio Damato 13:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Bassoon Reed / Wasp[edit]

My equipment isn't exactly top notch, but I would like to know what I can do to improve my "studio-esque" shots without the purchase of equipment. How does this image compare to other studio shots? Just a side note: this image has had more photoshopping than any other image that I've uploaded. Please tell me if I made an obvious photoshop error and anything I (without replacing equipment) can do to improve this type of shot. Thegreenj 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and nominate for QI to see how it does, but I'd still appreciate feedback on how to improve. Thegreenj 01:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's another photo, same conditions. Thegreenj 01:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Tibetan Prayer Flag[edit]

I would like to know the feedback for this image and to know what I could do to re-take this photo so I can meet the Quality Image guidlines... Booksworm 18:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • I won't pretend to know everything you could do to make this better, but for starters, try a little less extreme angle. The current one is making my head spin; I cannot really tell what is going on from the view that you chose. Looking at numbers, your EXIF data says ISO 1600. I never turn my camera up past ISO 200; point and shoot sensors are too small and generate too much noise. The picture is filled with noise reduction artifacts. Also, if you choose an angle similar to this one, f/4.9 is probably too large to create sufficient DOF. I don't know how far you can make the aperture smaller without major diffraction issues, so I think it would be best just to try a diffent angle where the distance of the subject is more constant. Given the f/5 aperture, ISO 1600, and 1/90 second exposure, I'd say the place where you shot this is pretty dark. If you have no control over lighting, bring a tripod and extend the exposure. Thegreenj 18:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Cotswold Way Marker[edit]

Does anyone have any feedback on this photo? I have plenty of opportunity to reshoot this one if I need to so any reshooting tips would be welcome. Richard Cocks 15:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Good quality, but compostion needs improvements. I would try a less tight framing, with the subject not at the centre of the photo. Also, the background is a bit distracting, try to use a smaller depth-of-field (larger aperture). Finally, vertical lines should be vertical in the photo. Good work! - Alvesgaspar 15:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yellow-green leaves[edit]

I just uploaded two images of some leaves. I think that they're pretty decent, but as a newcomer to Commons (I mainly use en:wikipedia), I don't know what level of quality is expected for quality or featured images. I'm not going to retake the pictures (not a heavy photographer), but I'd appreciate feedback for each. Nihiltres(t.c) 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The pictures seem promising at thumb size but not in full resolution. Most of the image is blurry, due to small depth-of-field, and lacks contrast. If the interest of these picture is purely asthetical (I don't see any relevant encyclopedic value), then the composition and the overall quality should be much better. Alvesgaspar 15:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, yes - that camera was not good for depth of field, or indeed for image quality in general. The next camera I use (and most of the other photos I plan to upload) have a higher resolution and depth of field. Thanks, I appreciate the time you took to review it. Nihiltres(t.c) 17:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Texas paintbrush[edit]

How would this hold up as a FPC, and what could I have done to make it better? -IG-64 13:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Good focus and quality. I'd crop tighter (left and right) if you intend this to illustrate a Texas Paintbrush article. --Dschwen 21:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I made a cropped version, is this better for the Texas Paintbrush page? -IG-64 09:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The crop improves it. But it's still a bit bleached and not quite sharp enough for an FP, or even QI. A shorter exposure would be less bleached, and maybe sharper (especially with the zoom on - zoom and longer exposures don't agree with each other, absent a tripod). If you could have gotten closer instead of zooming in, or as well as, that might have been better. And the background is messy. A narrower DOF would have helped there by blurring the background a bit more, though it might not help with getting the focus on the flower sharp. All in all, it's not a bad shot, but it could have been better. Sorry, Ben Aveling 12:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)