Commons:Photography critiques
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days. |
Graphics community: Graphic Lab · Graphics Village Pump · Picture Requests · Photography Critiques · Photography terms
Welcome to the Photography critiques!
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!
If you want general suggestions to a good photo, you can ask here, and we already wrote guidelines.
If you don't get some terminology used here, don't be shy you can ask about it, or read
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.
Macaca mulatta eating a Citrus
[edit]
Hello everyone, I recently resubmitted an image for Featured Picture nomination and you can find it here. The feedback mentioned concerns regarding incorrect color balance, sharpness, and definition, I corrected the color balance but rest are out of hands. Despite trying various settings such as ISO at 100 and a shutter speed of 1/150, I'm still encountering sharpness issues in my images. I'm curious to understand whether the problem lies in my technique or the resolution of my beginner-level camera, the Canon EOS 200D/Rebel/SL2.--iMahesh (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think there's a few things about your technique you can improve before hitting the limit of your equipment:
- - Increase shutter speed: 1/100s or 1/150s is risky at 200mm+, particularly for subjects that are not completely still. Turn on Auto-ISO, burst mode, and continuous AF. Take a few shots at ~1/640s, then ~1/320s, then ~1/160s. Back in the computer, see what is the lowest shutter speed that still gets you good sharpness, and use that as a reference for future sessions. Still, always take multiple shots of the same subject: even with adequate settings and good technique, things often go wrong
- - Nail the focus: this image seems slightly front-focused i.e. the plane of focus seems to be on the orange and not on the head. Make sure you put the AF point on the head
- - Try out new AI tools: software such as Adobe's Denoise AI or DXO's DeepPrime will do wonders for high ISO shots. Most of the wildlife shots you see these days at FPC use these tools, give them a go!
- --Julesvernex2 (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Julesvernex2: thanks for revert will keep these points in mind: Checking shutter speeds w.r.t lighting, Manual/Touch focus instead of letting camera to find the subject, Trying Auto ISO for few days to understand the values, checking AI tools (but should keep in mind not to alter image way too much). --iMahesh (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome, ping me if there's something you want to detail further. As for these specific AI tools: they replace the traditional Raw demosaicing algorithms and are non-generative, so shouldn't structurally alter the image. However, keep an eye out for artefacts and aliasing on fine details (e.g., these wing feathers) --Julesvernex2 (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Julesvernex2: I tried out denoise and slightly modified the image, I think its got good quality now. --iMahesh (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, nice job! Clean background and additional detail on the subject, without artefacts. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Julesvernex2: I tried out denoise and slightly modified the image, I think its got good quality now. --iMahesh (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome, ping me if there's something you want to detail further. As for these specific AI tools: they replace the traditional Raw demosaicing algorithms and are non-generative, so shouldn't structurally alter the image. However, keep an eye out for artefacts and aliasing on fine details (e.g., these wing feathers) --Julesvernex2 (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Julesvernex2: thanks for revert will keep these points in mind: Checking shutter speeds w.r.t lighting, Manual/Touch focus instead of letting camera to find the subject, Trying Auto ISO for few days to understand the values, checking AI tools (but should keep in mind not to alter image way too much). --iMahesh (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think it looks perfect. The focus on the orange seems due as its also the focus of the monkey. Tao.contracting.229 (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
,_Lisbon_Zoo,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg){kind=link}
Outdoor tiles in Baguio
[edit]I'm just getting started at photography, just need some feedback. Please note, the camera I'm using (Canon Digital IXUS 40) auto focuses, and I cannot control it. 
Dentsinhere43 (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
My skiing photo
[edit]How do you like this photo? It's me in the photo. I took it back in 2020. I just uploaded it to use in the Wikipedia article about "Goggles" to show the reader what a person wearing ski goggles looks like.
Félix An (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good man. An accurate portrayal of googles. Tao.contracting.229 (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that this is a good illustration for the wiki article because the goggles are not a clear focus of the image. To focus more on the goggles, I would try to take it from closer up and have a less busy background. Buidhe (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I made a cropped version of this photo that focuses on the goggles! It's linked on the page for the original photo. Félix An (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Statue of Liberty
[edit]
I've been scrolling through the Statue of Liberty exteriors, and I found this image. It is of high quality and resolution. It is one of the best Statue of Liberty images I could find. Would this be acceptable as a featured picture? Please let me know. WildMouse76 (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's pretty well done but the Statue of Liberty has gotta be the most photographed statue in the world and I'm surprised there aren't some truly stunning ones on Commons. Given that the lighting seems rather plain, it might have an iffy chance at FP in my opinion. Also, the right side of the image is significantly more blurry than the left --- it seems the lens used might be damaged. dllu (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Dllu Surely the quality of the statue itself and the pedestal make up for the blurry parts. Anyway, I tried to find the best front facing pictures, and these are what I found. Let me know what you think. WildMouse76 (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Four flags at front of Sosnowiec Główny Train Station at night
[edit]
Is there anything that should be fixed or corrected on this photos? Is that enough quality to be quality image ? KrzysztofPoplawski (talk) 06:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- To me, the picture seems a bit undecided about its subject: Is it the flags, the projection on the wall or even the starburst from the lantern? If its about the flags I would try a tighter crop. On the left cut off the wooden hut and the bank (maybe even the draining pipe). Additionally I would try to crop the image from the bottom right to get the flags off the center (rule of thirds). But as always it's a question of personal taste. --Zinnmann (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Zinnmann Thanks for advices and opinion. KrzysztofPoplawski (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Images of former building of the turbine and compressor station of Dietl's spinning mill 1912-1914
[edit]
The next image to judge. I wait for your opinions and sugestions for this photo. Is enough to be QI, VI, and FP? KrzysztofPoplawski (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Probably QI, but you'd need to fix the artifacts/weirdness to either side of the lamppost/wire where they vertically cross the sky. Not likely to pass FPC, though, for a few reasons:
- the cropped lamppost/wires crossing the top-middle are distracting. I'd have to see an uncropped version to see if it's an improvement or if they're just too prominent in the composition.
- The light is good for detail, but not good for the "wow factor" expected at FPC.
- Composition is a bit unbalanced. Works for an infobox picture on Wikipedia, but it's quite right-heavy and top-heavy, with an unclear reason for the left crop. The top crop is too tight for the amount of space you have at the bottom, and it could use more space to "breathe" at least on the right, and probably on the left.
- The subject just might not be a realistic subject for FPC, with the road in the foreground, wires/poles between the camera and the building, etc. For a building that doesn't have a very unique look to it, the photo itself has to be really spectacular. In other words, FPC would be a very high bar for anyone taking a photo of this subject. — Rhododendrites talk | 18:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for all this information. It helps me to understand better FPC. KrzysztofPoplawski (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)