Our first steps tour and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy.
QI Support for Photo - (Mickiewicz Monument.jpg)
Thank you for your comments.
I have added a response as follows: "Understand your comment but think this impression mainly comes from the fact that the 1956 Monument has distinctly sloping sides (actually two vertical sections joined by one horizontal section) with one side masked by a tree - the tapered flag poles may add to this impression but perhaps these are not all truly vertical (refer building in background)."
Perhaps with this explanation you can now add your 'Support' for QI status for this photo or let me know if you think the photo needs editing first?
On QI you suggest to use "other version". But according to Commons:First_steps/Quality_and_description#Good_file_descriptions other version is for different crops or colors but not for completely different perspectives. Or did you mean a different "other version"? BTW: Your product photos are really good, but I have not such a studio / background equipment. Probably your standards are very high. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Nope. I just use my Sony camera, tripod, light from the window, and ceiling light. And a background of course (usually just A4 paper from the printer. Previously I got a big calendar that I used reversed as a white background, but left it once on a rain and had to throw it out). As for other_versions - I don't know about this guideline, but as far as product photography goes - I seen it used simply to link together shots of a one product from a single session under different angles (or configurations).
I will think about it. I have not enough room for a home studio or a light cube. The problem with window light is that it cannout be directed well. I don't think that this photo is done only with window light :) Did you use a focus stack? How do you get a white background if you do not photograph from 45° top, but straight as I've done it here (without Photoshop, I only use LR and with a simple setup?). --Tuxyso (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
That photo was made when I still had my calendar. So I could bend it getting a perfect background (you can see an edge of it reflected in the lens). I also used paper from my printer to bounce the light from above the camera (thank god for IR remote - otherwise I'd break my bones trying to press the release). As for depth of field: F/16 and precise manual focusing (no idea how I managed to hit the spot with a small viewfinder on entry-level camera though). At home I don't use focus stacking, besides: It's damn difficult unless you have FF with huge viewfinder (like Canon 1Ds or Sony A900) or an SLT camera. So I doubt I'd be able to do that with the A200 anyway. Getting perfectly white background though requires tiny bit of photoshop - I usually use dodge tool set to midtones range. Works wonders if you got slightly overexposed images. I used to shoot product photography in my previous job, so I know the workshop (although I never did final correction, there were dedicated graphic artists for that), but at home I do not have any studio (don't need it for anything) so that's why I try to use what's available for my wikipedia shots :) SkywalkerPL (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your in-detail description. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)