Commons:Photography critiques

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut
 SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days.

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


Are my photos good enough?[edit]

Hi, I have a lot of photos that I upload to Commons, I always upload my best. Are they good enough to be: Quality, Valued or Featured?

Should I propose them to those categories?

All my photos (some of them are uploaded from flicker by other users) are in Category:Jakub T. Jankiewicz.

Those are my recently uploaded images:

  • Jan Matejko selective focus statue.jpg
  • Galeria Korona.jpg
  • Domek Tkaczki wide.jpg

Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jakub T. Jankiewicz Valued images aren't about absolute quality but only relative quality. So your images will be approved as valued if they are the best depiction of the subject currently available on Commons. I think some of these have potential as quality images as well, but I don't usually judge there. Buidhe (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add my photos in categories Category:Mass grave in Bór, Category:Mass grave in Brzask, Category:Korona Kielce (shopping mall), Category:Domek Tkaczki, Category:Reenactment in Malbork are better than the others or the only images in the category. Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcubic: My point of view:

  • Not very sharp, DoF is very shallow so most of the photo is blurry, I'd do it with higher F so it's nicely sharp, I don't see the reason for shallow DoF

  • Strong vignetting effect has been applied which makes the photo looks unnatural to me. Nice composition though - I'd straighten the verticals and perhaps come just before sunrise to get some nice colors there. I see FP potential of the object if you work on the composition and take the picture under better light conditions

  • Interesting but distorted and the main object is in the shade. But again, nice composition

Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Podzemnik: those were just my last uploads, there are better photos I've taken (and uploaded to Commons), like those in categories I've linked. Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcubic: You can't expect other users to browse all your uploads. I'd recommend to chose a few photos that you think represent your work the best and ask others for a review here. Kind regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Podzemnik:

I can pick those:

  • This image won 4th place in Polish photo contest

  • Image of the frontman of the Polish folk band Percival, 3 of my other photos of the band are at Wikipedia, I think that my photos are best in the category Category:Percival (band)

  • Książ Castle in Wałbrzych, Poland

I have also a lot of photos from Reenactments in Wolin (I was 3 times there are 3 categories) and Malbork it's hard to pick the best. Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcubic:

  • Underexposed to me, the graveyard is not fully sharp, vignetting has been applied (?), black is likely clipping

  • Nice QI. Sharp but the focus is not on the eyes and the main thing I see here is that the instrument is cropped. I'd also crop it a wee bit from the top and get rid of the distracting brown bench side on the left bottom. Maybe VI

  • Underexposed, possibly overprocessed (or maybe you used a polarised filter? The sky look tweaked). The top crop is quite tight, the verticals are not straight (though perhaps acceptable as you were very close to the building), there are some people in it, the light is not very good as there is a big shadow on the building

Please take my reviews easy, I was mostly reviewing the photos for FP :) Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a few pictures with my Galaxy S20 FE and uploading them to be used on Commons and Wikipedia. What do you think about them?[edit]

I hardly process them, but I did use GIMP and darktable a few times. Definitely not a professional though.

  • Visão panorâmica de Mogi das Cruzes a partir da Estação Estudantes.jpg
  • Protesto anti-Bolsonaro 2021-09-07 5.jpg
  • Helbor Dual Patteo Mogilar à distância.jpg
  • Edifício Prestes Maia visto da Pinacoteca.jpg

Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 02:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, @Tetizeraz: these are not among the prettiest pictures. This page is intended for pictures that might go into one of the quality categories, and these don't have much hope for that. However, they can still be useful to illustrate articles.
  • The first, I see, already illustrates a transit station article. Humble, but useful.
  • The second might illustrate an article about its political topic, but of course that's a question for those who edit those political articles. I notice that its categories do not include geographic ones.
  • The third illustrates a building for which there is no article, but it can serve when it is needed. It could be improved by trimming the majority of the sky and parking lot, making the picture less tall.
  • As for the last, I don't know where it could be used. Perhaps it's because I don't understand the place.
Don't worry; most of our pictures are not now used in any article, nor have any known purpose at this time, but we don't know the future. Do try to get pictures that are relevant, or might become relevant, to a Wikipedia article or other use. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Photos are very useful and quality is good. May not succeed at QIC due to imperfections but these images are unique enough that they may well succeed at COM:VIC. And certainly there's encyclopedia value so I would encourage you to keep contributing. Buidhe (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just want some critique![edit]

Hi! I overall just want your opinion on the following photographs. I'm thinking of putting the following up for quality images.

  • Apple River Canyon State Park - Apple River.jpg
  • Ross-Ade Stadium.jpg
  • Ohio Stadium Overhead.jpg
  • Target Field Aerial.jpg

--Lectrician2 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

Hi Lectrician2, here you have a first assessment of your drone photos.

  • First photo: good composition, but the sky is overexposed to the point of appearing totally white (we say "blown" in photography). The easiest way to avoid a blown overcast sky is to underexpose the photo and bring the light back in the digital lab.
  • Second photo: uninteresting composition, with all those white roofs in the foreground. The photo is overexposed making those roofs almost totally white.
  • Third photo: the best of the three in terms of composition. You should correct the slight ccw tilt. Also, there is some visible noise owing to the relatively poor quality of the drone camera.
  • Fourth photo: poor framing, due to the uninteresting roof in the foreground.
Two final comments: take your time to carefully choose the framing and composition. Pay attention to the lighting conditions: with an overcast sky, set the camera to correctly expose the subject (yes, it may be difficult with a drone). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unknown[edit]

MPI HSP46 2021-4-10 NEC Inbound.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawnmower500 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lawnmower500, here is the assessment to your picture: Two problems causing an overall poor quality of the image:

  • White balance is incorrectly set, making the image bluish. This is not supposed to happen with your camera, if the white balance is set to automatics (unless it was manipulated in the digital lab);
  • The image is tilted.
  • Some parts are overexposed, appearing as almost totally white.
  • Image is not sharp enough. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a likely FP?[edit]

Church of the Redeemer, Toronto, Canada.jpg

This is an example of an older building being completely overwhelmed by taller modern buildings behind it, but the building immediately behind it has quite interesting architecture, in my opinion, with the steps on top on both sides, so I find the composition very intriguing. The drawbacks are the gray sky and the mild-to-moderate degree of noise at full size. I'd love to have someone's views before I consider whether to nominate the photo at FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Ikan Kekek, this is definitely a serious candidate for FP, because of its impressive composition. Yes, I agree those are weak points working against promotion but I believe they can be minimized. Two further issues deserve attention: i) the washed-out colours of the whole picture, which is a result of the poor lighting conditions. This can be corrected in the digital lab by slightly manipulating saturation and contrast; ii) the effect of the perspective correction on the cars and people, which are vertically compressed. This can be easily corrected by reducing the image size horizontally (better than increasing vertically). I hope this helps. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your critiques, Alvesgaspar. Would you like to work on these things, Maksimsokolov? It would be nice for this photo to be able to be an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you very much, Alvesgaspar and Ikan Kekek, I appreciate your insight. I tried to address your concerns and made several corrections. In my view, this is the limit this photo can be corrected, and more interference will cause it to look unnatural. --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 15:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think I could try a nomination and see what opinions it receives. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just my final 2 cents. This one of those cases when fully correcting the verticals might not be necessary or adequate. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:CN Tower from AGO (daytime).jpg - QI[edit]

Toronto's CN Tower, viewed from the Art Gallery of Ontario on a sunny day

Hey, I was hoping to get some opinions on this image as a possible QI candidate, as well as any suggestions for improvements. Thanks in advance! —oscitare (he/him, il/lui; talk) 06:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi Oscitare, I believe this can be a successful QI candidate. But I would first try to improve composition, by removing those uninteresting trees in the foreground, and sharpen the image, which is a bit soft. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phone cameras are limited by their very tiny lens, regardless of their megapixel figure. It’s just technically impossible to get optical resolution on micrometer level with a small aperture of 1-2 millimetres compared to an SLR lens and sensor of much larger size. You can clearly see that in the tree foliage looking rather like a watercolour painting than a photograph, the single leaves having melted into larger areas of unique colour. The devices try to make up for this by severe digital processing, sharpening edges, brightening up shadows and reducing noise, killing even more detail. It’s a pity here because the scene is really fine, and the photographer has a good sense of composition. This image definitely deserves a better equipment. I would have taken it in landscape orientation to get more of the skyline instead of the foreground trees. --Kreuzschnabel 10:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:PHC Ichgam January in 2021.jpg[edit]

PHC Ichgam January in 2021.jpg

Requesting feedback about nominating this image for the QI. Hulged (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry Hulged, but technical quality is very poor. Image is overall unsharp, noisy and full of compression artefacts, owing (probably) to the poor quality of the camera. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alvesgaspar, I understand. Thanks for your feedback :) Hulged (talk) 10:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hulged: It's very difficult to get a QI out of a smartphone. Their megapixel count keeps increasing but they're limited by a tiny lens. That said, this is pretty good for a smartphone picture. The light is nice, and it's not all that undetailed. IMO it's on the edge of QI and will probably depend on who reviews it. As Alvesgaspar is aware, there is some variability in the standards reviewers hold QIs to. :) Certainly getting a dedicated camera will help, though. — Rhododendrites talk |  12:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I'm so sorry, I was looking at the thumbnail to the right! Yes, File:PHC Ichgam January in 2021.jpg does have some problems that would prevent it from being QI, I'm afraid. Sorry for the confusion. To make this comment a bit more constructive: the light there is definitely nice -- good eye to see that -- and I'd try to get directly in front of the house, and maybe lift the camera up as much as possible to get over the fence (or even through the fence! that's the most distracting part for me). But one part of what I said remains: having a separate camera will make a big difference. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something strange happening here, making the image sharp and blurry in turns. See annotations. Has it been taken through a window pane? Usually, there should be nothing but air between your camera lens and the object :) --Kreuzschnabel 10:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Quality is very poor though, even in the sharp areas. Smartphones just aren’t really good cameras, see what I stated above. Get a small point-and-shoot-camera of reasonable quality, you won’t regret it. --Kreuzschnabel 10:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating! Somehow that does not really look like and optical phenomenon to me. I'd suspect that something happened in the processing stage. The metadata contains an undefined 0x8889 EXIF tag that contains "portrait". If this was shot in "portrait mode" (or however Xiaomi calls that), that might well be the software trying to blur the background in order to produce some "fake-bokeh" around the person in the center – and failing miserably, because there is no person in the center. So tip for the future @Hulged: maybe try to avoid portrait mode and see if that helps. --El Grafo (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you, El Grafo, Kreuzschnabel and Rhododendrites. Will consider getting a camera then. --Hulged (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Photography_critiques&oldid=609806175"