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.
i just want some opinions about this pic. Think that could benominated at FPC?[edit]
its a plane tree in a park
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Luís Filipe Figueiredo Alves Gaspar (talk • contribs) 19:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment That's a very interesting subject and black and white seems like a good choice, but I'm not sure I'd vote for it at FP. My main problem is the vertical bar in the background – maybe a light pole? It's a bit distracting as it intersects with the part of the bark that's sticking out. Photography aside, people at FPC usually expect a bit more in terms of description text and categories – in your case: what kind of tree is this? --El Grafo (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Wonderful eye for detail. But, besides the background issue mentioned by El Grafo (which is really distracting), it’s not really sharp. Altogether nice but not outstanding, with some drawbacks. As for composition, I’d have placed the peeling-off part left of center so it looks "into" the frame, but that’s a matter of taste. --Kreuzschnabel 18:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Qasem Soleimani[edit]
Any chance for FP at Commons or Wikipedia? 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Too week, this is a snapshot. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 16:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Quality-wise, it isn't too shoddy, but the composition is a little tight so I'd say that that would be an issue. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 02:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Advice on photos to nominate for QI?[edit]
Hi all. I take a lot of photos for Commons (~40,000 uploaded so far), and I keep thinking I should nominate the best of them for QI status. However, I've had relatively little success in the past (current count is 6, latest attempt was Commons:Quality_images_candidates/Archives_January_09_2020#File:At_Cagliari,_Sardinia_2019_060.jpg), which makes me reluctant to nominate more in the future. If anyone's willing, I'd appreciate feedback on whether I should keep trying or not, and if there are any of my recent uploads that might stand a chance of passing. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there Mike Peel.The place for such questions, tips and discussions is at Commons:Photography critiques. You might also want to read COM:PT for a lot of photography tips. :-) --Cart (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- In the case of your last picture At_Cagliari,_Sardinia_2019_060, if you whant less noise reduce the iso number or take pictures in raw mode and use software like: Adobe Lightroom o Rawtherapee(https://rawtherapee.com free to use) that way you can improve light on your photos, and I recomend You to use a photo editor software like Adobe Photoshop (it requieres to adquire a commercial license) or Gimp(http://gimp.org) that is free to use, regards --Cvmontuy (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hey Mike, I've had a look at some of your recent uploads. Hate to say it, but if you want to produce QI-level photographs consistently and under all conditions, you will probably have to look for alternatives for that 18-300mm lens of yours. The folks over at QI tend to be picky, and from what I've seen, many of your uploads are both noisy and soft (especially the ones taken on overcast days) and suffer from very visible lateral chromatic aberration. The softness and the CA are to be expected from a super-zoom like this – as convenient as they may be, optically most of them are OK at best. Note that this is much less of an issue on sunny days, though, as you can stop down to f/8 to maybe f/10 where this kind of lens tends to peak in terms of sharpness. This one taken at f/9, for example, looks pretty good in terms of sharpness. It has some red and green CA along high-contrast edges, but if you can get rid of that (should be easy in Lightroom) I think it would be worth a try at QI. I guess that would be my recommended strategy: look at the images you took under bright conditions, check for sharpness, re-edit them in order to get rid of the CA (if Lightroom doesn't cut it, maybe try the "defringe" tool in rawtherapee) and try nominating these.
- Regarding the noise: with the 90D, you've got a new camera with an excellent sensor, so I'm quite sure the noisiness is not your camera's fault. I suspect that it is introduced during post-processing: With a soft lens you'll have to sharpen a lot, and that will amplify any noise. So again a) this is much less of an issue for pictures taken on sunny days and b) a better lens may help here. Hth, --El Grafo (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- @El Grafo: Thanks for the feedback! The 90D is new, so perhaps the extra noise was from my old 60D. I'll have a think about changing lenses - I also have a 10-18mm, example at File:At São Paulo, Brazil 2019 071.jpg (and others in that category), perhaps that fares a bit better. I'll also look into the CA reduction - that's not something I've tried doing before. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- @El Grafo: Also, File:At Barcelona 2019 092.jpg is now a QI, thank you for suggesting it! I'll use it as a ruler to measure other possibilities against. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
A worth FP or too common?[edit]
Hello dear Wikimedians, some days ago I took a photo of snow covered trees (yes, snow became rare these years). I just wanna ask if there is a realistic chance of an FP promotion.
Thank you in advance and greetings, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Great picture with nice mood, but in my opinion it is indeed too common. dllu (t,c) 20:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Nice motif and composition. Perhaps different light conditions would make it more wowy. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you for your tips. :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Panorama woes[edit]
Just got back from a trip to Washington DC, and thought I had a couple good panoramas. Unfortunately, there are some big problems. See below. — Rhododendrites talk | 14:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Distortion[edit]
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=small}
2.jpg)
Not as bad in the last one as in the first two, but still some issues. Is this just a result of being too close to the subject, regardless of the rest of the technique? Would it be better to get further away and use a larger zoom to get a similar resolution? — Rhododendrites talk | 14:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: I will not be able to provide any suggestions since I have abysmal panorama photography skills, but I just want to tell ya, the second LoC picture really stands out to me; the distortion seems to provide a tinge of personality to the shot. I'd support it in FPC, since it looks technically excellent apart from the distortion. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 00:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I think I'd want to give it another go at editing, at least, before nominating, especially since it's a much-photographed building. :) — Rhododendrites talk | 16:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: Try to use a different projection like "perspective". What software do you use for stitching panoramas? More natural results are coming from a zoom lens (50-80mm let's say) and standing further from the building. The first shot from the left was taken on 20mm focal length. That is really wide for panoramas shots. You still achieve reasonably looking shots without distortion - check this picture, it was taken on 17mm focal length, but the quality suffers - check the corners of the linked photo. Shooting corners of the building under a weird angle means that your camera doesn't see enough of these areas. Once your project it like I did, it takes the information it has (which is insufficient on the edges) and stretches it out. It looks relatively natural but the quality is no good. I couldn't stand any further as there is another building but if you can, always a step further. There are often other obstacles like road signs, tourists etc. so it's all about balance the distance vs quality.
- I took this shot on 28mm FL and I felt like I was already pushing it. Ideally, I'd go for at least 40mm. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Podzemnik: I use Lightroom. I did try the different panorama options (perspective/cylindrical/spherical) and even did a little warping in Photoshop after in one case (the capitol image). Standing further (across the street) is possible, but as I'm up some stairs the platform I'm standing on here obscures the entrance (not a big problem -- lots of photos of this building are from that lower perspective -- but I hoped to avoid it). A bigger limitation is the lenses I have. It's 20mm micro four-thirds, so 40mm full frame equivalent, but yeah it's fairly wide. Other options are an even wider one or a 40mm-150mm zoom lens, but the quality of that one is much less. I'm due for an upgrade, I guess. :) — Rhododendrites talk | 16:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: You can always try to share the raw files of the building with me (email on my user page) and I can try to give it a play. We can compare the results. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Big stitching errors[edit]
2.jpg)
If you look at the bottom middle triangle, you'll see it's wonky. Unlike the three above, which are taken by rotating a tripod head, with this one I physically moved to different points under the ceiling, creating 3 frames already more or less perspective-correct. That triangle was correct in the individual image, but Lightroom decided to mangle it. Is this a matter of just using a different stitching program? — Rhododendrites talk | 14:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: I tried a couple of times to physically move a tripod but the results weren't good. My technique now is to stand at one place but take multiple portrait shots so I get as many megapixels as possible, and decrease the amount of megapixels at the end if I need to get sharper results. Yes, it does make a difference if you use other software. I usually use just Lightroom, but sometimes, especially when there are geometrical shapes like lines on a building, it doesn't stitch it properly. Try to use dedicated software like PTGui or Hugin. They can also work with RAW files. Save the result as a TIFF file and do the tone mapping in Lightroom. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- For something like the very long stretch I mention below, it just wouldn't be possible without moving the camera position. I would've thought it would be easier for the software to stitch since there's less of an issue with distortion, but maybe the distortion is what it relies on to know where things go... — Rhododendrites talk | 16:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Lightroom failing[edit]
.jpg)
.jpg)
These are not the actual pictures, but representative. I tried to take a few long panoramas of ceiling mosaics. Several large rooms have repeating patterns with different images/names in the design as you move through the room, kind of like these two pictured. So I have 15-25 frames that look very similar, but with different details (they are lined up, unlike the two examples I have here). Lightroom utterly fails to offer any kind of panorama with them, regardless of mode. Recommendations? — Rhododendrites talk | 14:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: Per above. Especially with complicated panoramas like multiple rows or with patterns, I get better results with PTGui. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. I'll give one of the other programs a shot a bit later and see how it goes. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk | 16:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
