Commons:Photography critiques

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

color palette logo Welcome to the Photography critiques!

Commons discussion pages (index)

Would you like a second opinion before nominating a photograph of yours as a Quality Image, Valued Image or Featured Picture candidate, can't decide which of your images to enter into one of the Photo Challenges? Or do you have specific questions about how to improve your photography or just would like some general feedback?

This is the right page to gather other people's opinions!


Update this page


Start a new topic

If you want general suggestions to a good photo, you can ask here, and we already wrote guidelines.

See image guidelines >>

If you don't get some terminology used here, don't be shy you can ask about it, or read

See photography terms >>

Please insert new entries at the bottom, and comment on oldest entries first.

To prevent archiving use {{subst:DNAU}}, because SpBot archives all sections after 90 days, unless archiving has been postponed or suppressed through the use of {{subst:DNAU}}. You can ask the bot to archive a section earlier by using {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} – then it will be archived after 7 days.


Archive


What do you think about this?[edit]

Cranial imaging of a FFI patient. In the MRI, there are not normal signals in the bilateral frontoparietal subcortical area. MRA showed smaller distal branches of cerebral arteries.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessMaster7734 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 15 April 2018‎ (UTC)

Bay trail[edit]

San Francisco Bay Trail Riders

Comments on this as a possible QI? Thanks. en:User:DonFB

Update: I boldly nominated for QI. en:User:DonFB

Possible FP?[edit]

View of the central structure of Angkor Wat

I really love this composition, but I'm unsure whether to nominate it to FPC and thought I'd ask for some reactions here, first. I think the strengths of the photo are obvious, but I could see objections to the degree of sharpness, considering the moderate size of the photo (it's not small but not huge), and some people might object to the people in the photo, especially the woman taking a cell phone pic of another woman in the center of the photo. So what do you think - worth nominating at FPC or not? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Beautiful image, but of course the main subject is these ladies taking pictures of themselves. So, is it a nice feature ? IMO no, these people ruin the beautiful landscape, unfortunately. They don't bring anything interesting, just they're here while they shouldn't (I mean for us). I wouldn't support as FP but perhaps other reviewers will find something special. I think these women could have been welcome if they were doing something different than shooting with their camera. Here their action is disturbing -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for giving your take on the photo. It's a pity that the presence of people at such a major tourist attraction might mean that it's impossible for there to be an FP of this view. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You could always try to nominate it and see if there is a consensus. Sometimes I see people disagree with what I thought was an acceptable QI/FP level.--Peulle (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: I guess the "problem" is that this one is an architecture image with "disturbing" people. The exact same scene could work very differently, had it been photographed as a portrait of 2 people with an interesting background. Longer focal length, tighter framing, more "compression" … But anyway, I also think it might be worth a try. I I'm not sure I would support, but I probably would not oppose this one at FPC. --El Grafo (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I will think about it. I appreciate your thoughts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Is this a good bird picture?[edit]

  • Yellow-vented bulbul 2.jpg
  • Great white pelican @ PuJ Wetlands.jpg
  • Pink-backed pelican 2.jpg
  • Pink-backed pelican 3.jpg
  • Cygnus atratus 1.jpg

@Daniel Case: @Basile Morin: @Ikan Kekek: @Peulle: Please, could you four help review my image? I look forward to hearing some constructive criticism from COM members I look up to! GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

- Do you think the last four pictures are of good enough quality to be nominated for COM:VIC? GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
VIC would have to do with whether the pictures are best in scope. In other words, that would have to be the best yellow-vented bulbul picture on Commons, one of the American white pelican pictures would have to be the best on Commons, etc. I'll have a look with a mind toward QIC, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, in my opinion, the bulbul pic is probably not a QI. I think the bird is too small a percentage of the photo and that its feathers don't have enough definition, especially in the highlights. I like File:American white pelican.jpg a lot more. I like the composition, though someone might complain that there should be more lead room in front of it. If people pixel-peep, they may complain about color noise. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
File:American white pelican 2.jpg has blown highlights. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The last two photos look like QIs to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Thank you! Is there any way I could reduce the color noise of File:American white pelican.jpg? Also, if I nominated the last two, would you support it? :P GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Should I nominate File:American white pelican.jpg for QI or VI, or neither? GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Ikan. The quality of the 2 last ones is okay, but the crops are not very nice (not well centered). The first image is too noisy. The second one is not sharp. And the 3rd one is overexposed -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Currently none of them is fit for VI, as they all fail criterion 5 (= lack of Commons:Geocoding). --El Grafo (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
* @El Grafo: My camera doesn't have a geocoding feature, is there any way I could add that with external software? GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@GerifalteDelSabana: Yep, there are several methods for doing that. Try Commons:Locator-tool, for example. Commons:Geocoding has some more options available … --El Grafo (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • My opinion from left to right: Image 1 could be a QI. I've seen worse being promoted in the past and given the resolution and distance I'd probably vote in favour of it. Image 2 could be a VI contender (but I think there may be some images in the category with a better angle) but looks too unsharp for a QI. Image 3 is too bright - the highlights are almost if not completely blown. Image 4 could be a QI, especially since the head and neck are sharp. You might want to consider cropping some of the top. Image 5 is a QI, although check for CA.--Peulle (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Peulle: Thanks for the feedback! I've also noticed the purple fringes, and I've been doing some research on how to remove them. Sadly I don't have a UV filter yet (costs $50 here), would take some time for me to save up. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
A program like PhotoShop can remove them in camera raw by using the "remove chromatic aberrations" feature. I'm sure some other software programs have that too.--Peulle (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
It passes QIC, I think.--Peulle (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I couldn't advise you on how to reduce color noise, but I'm sure other folks will have advice for you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey GerifalteDelSabana, I just came across this discussion and as an avid bird photographer myself I'd like to offer you a piece of advice that helped me taking better bird pictures. Please consider getting lower to the ground when taking pictures of water birds. I've described the reasons for why this will improve images in a blog post. I hope you don't mind me joining this conversation and I wish you all the best of luck for your future pictures. All the best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

* @Frank Schulenburg: Thank you for the suggestion! Unfortunately, the place was a wildlife conservatory and I was the lowest I could get! I'll try to get a better angle if I ever get the chance to visit a non-barricaded location. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


* The image passed QIC, what can I do to bring it to FP-level? @Ikan Kekek: @Peulle: GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion: nothing. That image is as good as it's going to get. FP is not just about technical quality either, but about the personal opinions of the reviewers re whether they feel it has enough of a "wow factor". I'd just try to nominate it and see what happens. Maybe you'll get some more feedback.--Peulle (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Peulle:. You've been of great help. I'll do it when I get home. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Two more bird pictures, one more opportunity to improve and learn![edit]

  • Butorides striata in KL.jpg
  • Male eurasian tree sparrow in field.jpg

@Basile Morin: @Ikan Kekek: @Peulle:

Here's another two more pictures, possible FPC/QIC? Anything I could improve on?

If I'm too annoying, tell me, I'll stop tagging you.

GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

  • The execution of the photos are fine, but I'm afraid you'll never get a QI with 1/4000 sec and ISO 6400. You need to wait for a sunny day at take at say ISO 800 max otherwise the photos are too grainy. 1/4000 sec should oonly be for flying animals. Choose, say, 1/800 sec on a windy day and try for F8 for a good depth of field. Get the light over your shoulder so sunlight is falling on the bird's feathers. Wait till the bird is in profile and focus the camera on the eye. Ideally you want to be at the same elevation as the bird - not looking up and no looking down. Try to get close enough sto avois much cropping. Background should be natural, so the metal netting or whatever it is ruins the first image. For VI these days you need to identify subspecies, but your sparrow wouldn't make it I'm afraid. Best wishes, Charles
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't think they'll succeed at FP because the light is fairly ordinary and the birds aren't doing anything special (birds in flight are more exciting). I do think they are QI quality, though, since the resolution is high and the sharpness is pretty good. The left especially I'd promote right away. The sparrow pic is a bit noisy so that might be improved with a little bit of noise reduction.--Peulle (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
-@Peulle: What kind of noise? Color noise or luminance noise? GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Normal light noise, yes.--Peulle (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- How about VI for the right picture? The current one is quite low-res. (original picture is slightly out of focus too.) GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't matter; VI is about which picture displays best as a thumbnail in articles, so the current one is better.--Peulle (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I disagree on the photo on the left. I think it's not sharp enough for QI. Because the sparrow is a smaller bird, I think it might be a QI, but I'm not sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

MG B GT[edit]

1973 MG B GT 1.8 Front.jpg

Slightly disappointed with the result of this car photo I took. It didn't help it began raining in mid process and my hair got blown in my face. (Drawback of having long hair). I'm not particularly sure if it did came out blurry or not. I photograph it in a way so it could be promoted to QI but I'm doubtful if it sufficient to be one. I tried to fix the problem and just end up making the image too sharp. What do you think? --Vauxford (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a QI regular, so I'm not sure about the requirements on sharpness there. Doesn't look too bad to me though. However, you'll probably want to give it a bit of a counter-clockwise rotation to get the fence in the background stand up straight. --El Grafo (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible QI/VI?[edit]

  • Female Black Hornbill 3.jpg
  • Female Black Hornbill 2.jpg
  • Female Black Hornbill 1.jpg
  • Scaly-breasted bulbul.jpg
  • Closeup of Rainbow Lorikeet eating.jpg

Any thoughts on my pictures? Are there any unsightly JPEG artifacts? Would the first four pictures pass QI? And the last one for VI in the scope of "Head of a Rainbow Lorikeet" (of course I'll complete the information and geotag it before I nominate it)? @Peulle: @Ikan Kekek: @Llez: @Archaeodontosaurus: GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I make you the critic of your first image. As soon as we pass it to the analysis of CameraRaw we see that the bird is too black (2/3) and was impossible to recover below there are chromatic anomalies with magenta that does not exist on the bird and especially a lot of noise. Looking at Exifs we see that if f5.6 is good you should have done with 200 or 400 Iso and you would have had a time of laying around 1/80 or 1/60 which is good if you do not move. I do not advise to touch the gain control that you put for your device on "strong positive". Leave it normal and you can rework it with CameraRaw or another software afterwards.
Work your camera outfit; you have to be able to make perfect pictures at 1/40, this is where you can progress the most.
Make only RAW images and rework them. You have a good machine
For the head of the bird you chose the difficulty the three quarter facing face requires a great depth of field, and a lot of light. Obviously you did not have much if I believe exifs. The simplest is the profile where your depth of field will be low.
Before placing an image in VI look what has already been done as by Example: Rainbow Lorikeet MacMasters.jpg
You're right to ask that's how we progress. Your requests will always be welcomed --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible VI in the scope of "Puffed up adult Spilopelia chinensis (Spotted dove)"[edit]

  • Spotted dove -- Spilopelia chinensis.jpg

I personally think that it is a good picture; the other ones in the scope have either too many JPEG artifacts or too much noise, and in the case of one that is FP on the malayalam wiki, is out of focus.

GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Peulle: @Ikan Kekek: @Llez: Any thoughts? GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Compared to other images from the category it looks like just got out of bed with the feathers ruffled up like that. I don't think I'd support this at VI. --El Grafo (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Corpse flower at NYBG[edit]

A couple weeks ago the New York Botanical Garden announced that its corpse flower (Amorphophallus titanum) would be blooming in the next few days. When it started to open, they opened early and closed late, drawing big crowds. The corpse flower is the largest unbranched inflorescence (one of the largest flowers, basically), opens for only a couple days, only opens once every few years, and smells faintly of death. As someone who gets excited about such things (not the smell of death, but the chance to see an unusual/spectacular entity like this), I went up there and took a whole lot of pictures. Going through them at home, I was a little disappointed at my results.

It was in a conservatory with bright windows everywhere, packed with people, with no tripods allowed, and no direct light (that I can recall) on the flower itself, aside from daylight coming in through the glass roof. I took some with a flash and some without. One of the most common problems was washing out the detail of the spadix (the big yellow thing). I've tried to compensate for that in post-processing. I also struggled to find a good background (getting into a good position through the people was hard on its own).

I used two lenses: a 20mm f1.7 prime, wide-angle 12mm F2.0 prime/manual focus. I also tried to use a macro, but my macro is 60mm (120mm equivalent in fullframe) and it just wasn't possible to get far enough away given the crowd and other plants in the way -- not that a macro lens would be the ideal for such a large subject anyway.

Gallery below. Would love thoughts on what I could've done differently and/or approaches to editing. Don't get me wrong -- I don't think they're terrible; I just had high hopes. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Corpse flower (71198)a.jpg
  • Corpse flower (71230)a.jpg
  • Corpse flower (71254).jpg
  • Corpse flower (71304)f.jpg
  • Corpse flower (71306)a.jpg
  • Corpse flower (71317)a.jpg
  • Corpse flower (71334)a.jpg
  • Corpse flower (71355).jpg
  • Corpse flower (71587).jpg


  • @Rhododendrites: I personally prefer the second-last one. Very detailed and focused on the subject, and minimal distraction IMO. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 23:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Please review a photo as a candidate for QI candidates[edit]

A memorial to jews who were murdered in October 1941 in Dukora, Puchavičy district, Belarus

This is a photo recently uploaded by one of Commons users. Please review it because I once boldly nominated another image for FI and only one user supported it. Now I have doubts about any nomination. --Jarash (talk) 07:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  • @Jarash: Not much to condemn at 100% size. Problems: 1. Overexposed flower too. 2. Slight CA at trees. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 08:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Dusk by the sea - QI?[edit]

Dusk in Rowy - Baltic Sea.jpg

I took this photo and I have doubts. I'm worried about noise and light unsharp. Are there any chances for QI? --LoMit (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Beautiful picture, but I'm not sure about the noise either... ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 21:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

My first few pictures of twilight[edit]

  • Civil twilight at Kuala Lumpur suburbs.jpg
  • Civil twilight at Kuala Lumpur suburbs 2.jpg
  • DUKE highway at Civil Twilight.jpg
  • DUKE highway at Civil Twilight 2.jpg
  • DUKE highway at Civil Twilight 3.jpg
  • DUKE highway at Civil Twilight 4.jpg
  • DUKE highway at Civil Twilight 5.jpg
  • Civil twilight above unnamed hill in Selangor, Malaysia.jpg


My first few pictures of Earth before sunrise 🙈. Need some comments and feedback on it for FPC and QIC (I wouldn't even try to vote for either because it's literally my first time, lmaok). So here I go tagging some Commons users that have seemed honest enough, please leave honest and even harsh (if necessary) feedback... 😁 Daniel, Cart, Ikan, Basile, Martin, Peulle, Tomas, Six, and Ermell... I apologize for any inconvenience caused... Also, as a side note, I haven't geotagged the pictures yet. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 11:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Note that it says this at COM:FPC:
  • Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
   *almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others.
  • So I think I can say just from looking at these thumbnails that none would be an FP. I'd have to examine them more closely to see which one might be judged a QI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tilt is a problem for some of these, for the others it's the camera settings. Taking photos in the dark is exceedingly difficult. I haven't succeeded yet either. Let me know when you manage it.--Peulle (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The 2 first pictures are similar, and the #4 #5 #6 and #7 similar too. All of them show strong noise. It also seems that the tripod was not perfectly stable, as they are a little bit blurry at full size, maybe due to the wind, or to some kind of manipulation. Sorry there's no QI here in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Basile Morin: Thanks for the feedback, my first pictures so if it isn't a QI I'm not the least surprised. What about #3 and #8? I know #3 is def not QI, too much motion blurring and blown highlights. I was using a small book as a tripod, heh. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 15:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The #3 is surprisingly blurry for a long exposure shot -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment All images are too blurred. If you are using an inexpensive kit lens you should not open the aperture completely but always close one or two steps. For long exposures, you can lower the ISO settings to reduce image noise. Without a tripod such shots make no sense unless you declare it art.--Ermell (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment per others. You have a keen eye though. There are some really good ideas you present here. Keep at it! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Shanti Stupa, Leh[edit]

Shanti Stupa, Leh

Hi, Do you think it is worth postprocessing edits (it is out of the box)? Trougnouf said on QIC that it needs a "perspective correction/rotation", but I don't think so. Correction of noise in the sky? And yes, it at 3700 m altitude, so the sky is normally this dark. I couldn't bring my Nikon, so I was left with my smartphone... Regards, Yann (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Photography_critiques&oldid=315462487"