Please insert new entries at the top.
Please comment on oldest entries (nearest the bottom) first.
For some suggestions on what makes for a good photo, and to understand the terminology used here, you may like to read Commons:Image guidelines.
- There are shadows and cars always, except if the day is cloudy (worst dof). I'm sure that the image can be better. I can take another image, but I don't know what is improvable and why is not QI--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 21:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- The vertical lines of the buildings of the left are not stright, but if you see the vertical lines of the image, you can see that the buildings of the left are a bit tilted in reality (I think, IMO)--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 22:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- See notes about vertical lines--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 11:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Considered preferable to annul this page. No one attends
- It's QI now. Tanks for nothing--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 22
- 59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Night Sky Long ExposuresEdit
These three photos are my first relatively successful attempts at capturing the night sky. I plan on putting more effort into this, with respect to more interesting composition, formal descriptions of the part of the sky in the picture, sharper focus, and improved post processing.
I would appreciate feedback on how to technically improve the capture of the night sky, especially with respect to focusing. Actually focus in general is something I'm looking to improve this summer. Feedback, and/or ideas on how to make composition more interesting would also be appreciated.
Last but not least, advice on post processing long exposures, and/or images shot at high ISO (these were 3200 I believe) would be amazing. I work with FLOSS tools like GIMP, and UFRaw. Bennett000 (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Tram photo with a compact cameraEdit
The above photo was taken in 2011 with a compact camera, before I got my first DSLR, and I am not sure about its technical quality. Especially I've now been playing around with the colors for a long time until I produced these results, but I'm still not sure - does the sky seem unnatural, or is that just my imagination? darkweasel94 Diskussion/talk/diskuto 20:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Seems a bit dark, but not too bad. Could be selectively brightened to balance it better with the rest. Might be a bit of a yellow cast to rest. That can likely be tweaked as well. If you'd like to delegate the task I'd be happy to give it a try with the GIMP. --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Pause in FlightEdit
Hi! I would appreciate a little feedback, because I'm new to photography. I like this picture for aesthetic reasons, but I want to know if it is also a good quality photo. I inverted colors, and am not sure if there is noise or overdone whites along the throat, bill and eye. Is the crop okay, or do I need more background? Also, can you see any problems with the background, like camera water damage or noise? Any tips are much appreciated, thank you! --Kati Fleming (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Decent quality for those circumstances and 1/80s exposure time. Noise isn't that bad, but I suspect there's slight chromatic aberration (most obviously around the claws). Try using this fix or some other filter if you use a different image editor, and see if there's an improvement. Regarding the crop, the positioning of the subject seems a little bit "off" to me. What bothers me is mostly the too tight crop on the bottom in combination with a lot of empty space above. Try experimenting with ratios if you have blank space to spare on the original shot. — Yerpo Eh? 09:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I took this panorama from the top of a hill. It took a lot of technical effort to process (it is tone mapped from an HDR image in addition to being a panorama). But for some reason the picture still looks... mediocre. It doesn't have anything special about it. Should I use a longer focal length next time and only photograph the mountains/farmland without all the residential houses in the foreground? Also I would like some feedback on the technical aspects of this picture. Are the stitching seams visible? Are colours even across the image? Did the HDR tone mapping cause any apparent artifacts or cause it to look fake? (without the HDR, much of the sky on the top right corner would be blown out and some details in the houses would not be visible). Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Fixing the skyEdit
I would welcome some instruction on how to fix noise/pixelation in the sky (if it is possible) in this image. I have Photoshop CS5. Any input is appreciated. Thanks. - Godot13 (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I see you are suffering from posterization. What camera did you use? Did you shoot in RAW or JPEG? If JPEG, what quality? Did you use any software on this image? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- The composition is nice, I would only crop some of the ground. Not so for image quality: most of the picture is soft (slightly unsharp) and the posterization is too obvious. If, as I suspect, it is the result of a too agressive post-processing (i.e. contrast and saturation increase) it can be reverted (working from the original). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both for responding. It was shot with a Mamyia 645 and imacon digital back. I do have the raw file in FlexColor 3f file format (not that I can immediately open it though...) The posted image is a crop of the original, some (attempted) corrections made. The original image is sharper and the posterization is very heavy.-Godot13 (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Through the facadeEdit
I sort of like this picture I took last summer. It is a shot through the facade of the Harpa concert hall in Reykjavík of a band, mainly the singer, that was playing on a stage outside. I'd like a honest second opinion on whether this composition works and if the technical quality is any good. --Bjarki S (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Frankly, I don't think it works. Most of the space is filled with an ugly foreground and the subject (the singers) is cropped and not clear enough. Technical quality is also on the poor side: noise, unsharpness, most objects are out of focus. Just my opinion, other people may like the composition! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
To Crop or Not to Crop...Edit
The second image is a drastic crop of the first but I think it improves the image (e.g., the two sleeping lion-halves in the back left are disturbing and have been removed) and the central focus- the shot of the lion yawning while being groomed- still remains. Does the cropped version approach being a quality image? Thoughts? Thanks in advance. -- Godot13 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Crop it. Two heads are much more interesting than two tails. QI? No opinion. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Two Bridge PhotosEdit
- There is a line on the second one, which should be cleaned out. It should not have been made QI with such a defect. There is also a disturbing reflexion in the water. See notes. The first one seems fine to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Mojave National PreserveEdit
- There is a lot of noise, and the educational value seems low. It could be anywhere in the world. Yann (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- I quite like the composition, but the photo doesn't seem sharp enough to get through FP or QI. I agree the educational value is probably low regarding these specific mountains, but it might be useful in illustrating a topic like haze, especially if more information was provided on the conditions and the distances to the various ranges. We have other pictures that would probably beat it at VP for that particular topic, but VP is as much about the topic as the photo, and maybe there's a more specific topic where this one would shine. --Avenue (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Can this VI make FP?Edit
This image just made Valued Image. Is it worthy of submission as FP? If so, are there any issues to be worked out first? Thanks in advance for your comments! -- Godot13 (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- the composition is very good, but the technical accomplishment is not as high as we usually see at the FPC IMO --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- What do you want to know? The subject is centered and visible whole, but that's is about the only positive thing to say about the picture, I'm afraid. On the down side, it's badly tilted, unsharp and grainy due to sensor noise, has overblown white parts and a disturbing case of chromatic aberration (CA) visible on edges. I'd suggest taking it again, at a different hour when the sunlight isn't so harsh, with lower ISO setting to reduce graininess and a tripod to stabilize the camera. Then you can use a filter in your image editing software to take care of CA. — Yerpo Eh? 06:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- I added the sculptor and sculpture date. You must be very careful whenever adding a photograph of a sculpture in the United States to establish that the sculpture is no longer under copyright (this one is okay because it was first published before 1923). On quality: a low ISO would be better but may not be possible because you wouldn't freeze the water in the same way. However, this image would greatly benefit from either using a lower aperture or moving the camera closer to the subject, either of which would narrow the depth of field and separate the subject much more clearly from its background (the detailed tree leaves are very distracting and unimportant). If moving closer prevents you from fitting the subject in frame, consider a panorama. If you're not using a tripod, you should shoot a little wide in order to accommodate rotation in post - otherwise you may end up cropping too much. And yes, use software correction for chromatic abberation, or a different lens. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- To add to the above comments, I find that the statue disappears into the clutter of the trees behind the statue.
- With the background in focus, it draws the eye away from the subject of the photo, the fountain.
- Using a smaller f/stop, perhaps a f/2.8, and focusing tightly on the statue would blur the background, bringing the viewers focus onto the statue.
- PeteBobb (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)