Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Photography critiques

color palette logo 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 Callenges? 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.

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


Mimosa pudica flowerEdit

Will this qualify for FP, thanks Deepugn (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  Comment Sorry, it is not very sharp and it has too much image noise for FP. What kind of lens was used? For this type of photo, I would recommend moving close and using a high quality 90mm macro lens rather than stand far away with a 420mm lens. dllu (t,c) 23:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

DamselflyEdit

Really appreciate a feedback on this, thanks Deepugn (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Deepugn, same problem as the previous one. Weird framing, and proportion of the frame. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Really good moment captured, but the depth of field is too shallow, as the photo is not sharp enough for FP or QI, in my opinion. I don't find the shape of the picture frame strange, for whatever that's worth, but I think that whereas I don't really care about that in most cases, many others on this site do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Bubulcus ibis (Cattle Egret)Edit

Hi everyone. I was looking for some feedback on this image. It just passed QI and was considering if it had a shot at perhaps FP? Either way any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks! Mifter (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi Mifter, I like it in general, but I'm not sure whether I'd give it a pro at FPC. First, the white areas at the top are about as bright as the bird, and as the eye is typically drawn to the brightest point in an image, they they steal away some of the viewer's attention. Second, there is more empty space to the left of the head than to the right, but normally you'd want more space in front of the subjects face than behind it (en:Lead room). I've made an approximate crop suggestion in an image note (feel free to remove it!) that could help to mitigate these two points – unfortunately, you'd lose the purple flowers on the left. If the image is already cropped and you've got some additional space on the right, you could add that and go with a wider crop of course. Finally, you may not have noticed that there is a relatively new rule at Commons FP, that disqualifies images that are licensed GFDL only or GFDL + CC-BY-SA-ND, so I fear that with your current license selection it will be rejected. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi El Grafo, thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it. The image as you see it is slightly cropped in (the original is 12.1 megapixels vs 10.5 for the crop as I was trying to go for a golden spiral crop on the birds head.). Going back to the original, I made two crops - here and here to try and gain some lead room while keeping some of the purple flowers, let me know what you think if you have a moment. Regarding the new(ish) FP license restriction, thank you for informing me. It is disappointing to hear about as I'm generally willing to consider re-licensing images if asked but find a categorical exclusion rather heavy handed. Thanks again for your input. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Mifter, difficult choice. I like the purple flowers, but I think crop 2 works better, so I'd go for that one. --El Grafo (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


ChrysanthemumEdit

 
Chrysanthemum

Using a very wide angle 15mm lens (on full frame) with a close-focus adapter, I captured this in October 2015 with the flower merely a few centimetres away from the lens. What do people think about it? Is the extreme field curvature causing the petals to be blurry a fatal flaw? Is the second flower on the bottom of the picture ruining the symmetry of the composition? dllu (t,c) 22:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dllu: Wide-angle macro, that's certainly something we don't see all that often. Reminds me a bit of the sample images I've seen from the Laowa 15mm f/4 1:1 macro lens. You get a lot of the environment in a macro shot with this, which can work out very nicely (and I think in general it does here). Personally, I don't mind the softness too much aesthetically (and the more I look at it … I think I actually like it), but it's difficult to predict what people over at FPC would say, for example. I'm not sure about the second flower on the bottom. It is darker than the main flower, so you've still got a bit of separation between them. But the other one at the ca. 10:30 o'clock position is quite disturbing for me. --El Grafo (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Photograph of churchEdit

Looking for a second opinion: Is this photo Quality-image worthy? Thanks! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Right now, this wouldn't pass QIC. You need to do some kind of perspective correction, because I feel pretty safe in assuming that the church doesn't actually look the way you're depicting it. The left crop could be more spacious, too, but if that's all you've got, make the perspective correction and try a QIC nomination. I can't be sure one way or the other on passing even with perspective correction, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with the criteria for Quality Images, but for me, the biggest issue is the overexposure in the white, sunlit surfaces of the church and the building in the background. These also come with significant chromatic aberrations and purple fringing. I don't know if it's the sensor or the JPEG compression, but the whole image has a mottled feel to it at when viewed at 100%. These issues will be hard to overcome without equipment with manual exposure control, a bigger and better sensor, better glass and the possibility to use polarizing filters. LX (talk, contribs) 12:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
All right, thank you both. I think those corrections are pretty far over my head, so I will just take your verdict of "not QIC-quality". :) Thanks again for your help! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible FP or not?Edit

I hope it's not too strange for me to ask a question about someone else's picture. I think this photo of a barbary macaque is so funny, with the monkey's mischievous expression while he probably breaks a car's antenna. I would nominate it to FPC just because it's well-composed and funny. However, one could criticize the sharpness of the monkey, the glariness of the sky, and maybe even consider the anti-avalanche mesh a distracting background. My rejoinder would be that the monkey is sharp enough, especially since you miss the point of a humorous photo by pixel-peeping, and there are days that look exactly as depicted. So what do you think? Is this worth an FPC nomination, or would it get picked apart on technical grounds? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment Though it is an amusing photo, it just seems like a snapshot to me. You are right that the technical quality is poor (and I don't think the monkey is sharp enough). If it were a photo of a rare or extinct animal, the lack of sharpness could be excused. But these friendly monkeys come and play with man-made objects all the time and almost always have such a mischievous expression. They are a popular tourist attraction and hundreds of photos of them must be getting taken every day at least, so I don't think this moment in particular is special enough to warrant an FP. dllu (t,c) 01:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot. That makes sense. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Flowers and the Alcatraz Water Tower.jpgEdit

 
Flowers with the Alcatraz Water Tower in the background

I captured this picture on Alcatraz Island, a fascinating island with a rich history. I wanted to juxtapose the vibrant flowers with the Alcatraz water tower, an austere symbol of the most notorious prison of the United States. I was a bit disappointed that it is declined at QIC (insufficient depth of field) but I was wondering what I should do to improve this, or if the idea works at all. Is the tower simply too ugly? Should I have stopped down to f/16 or something (the photo was taken at f/8)? dllu (t,c) 05:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

dllu, if you choose to do it again focus stacking is a better option, because if you close more the sharpness will drop, every less have a sweet spot, closing more than the necessary the diffraction will interfere in the image quality.
It also is too dark, you could bring more from shadows.
about the subject, I can't see a real contrast and a good history there, a barbed wire, something more violent would create this contrast the water tower.. not so much. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 09:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Shinko cultivar photosEdit

I have 12 photos of this here: User:PumpkinSky/Uploads/2017 in the Shinko section. Some aren't worthy of VI or QI nomination. But I think some are worhty of VI or maybe even QI nomination, but I'm not sure which one is best. Any advice appreciated. PumpkinSky talk 18:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @PumpkinSky: I'd say the first 5 taken with the mobile phone would probably be rejected at QI (but not necessarily at VI), as they show some strange artefacts when viewed at 100% magnification. Looking at the remaining ones, some are over-all unsharp (e.g. File:Pyrus pyrifolia (Shinko) inflorescence4.JPG), require more depth of field (e.g. File:Pyrus pyrifolia (Shinko) inflorescence-fruit buds.JPG) or are not focused on the main subject (e.g. File:Pyrus_pyrifolia_(Shinko)_inflorescence3.JPG). But File:Pyrus pyrifolia (Shinko) inflorescence2.JPG is pretty good imho, as most of the front flower is in focus. I don't know how good your chances are at QI, but I think this one might be worth a try. For VI I would probably go for File:Pyrus pyrifolia (Shinko) inflorescence 3.jpg, as it shows the pink/purple parts of the flower nicely (unless it's not typical for the species/cultivar to have so many of them).
Looking at your settings with the DSLR: As a general rule of thumb, for close-ups like this you usually want to stop down your aperture to at least F8, possibly more, as 1) this brings you more depth of field (= more of the subject will be sharp) and 2) over-all lens performance usually increases if stopped down an f-stop or two, so something around F8-F11 may well be close to the sharpness sweet-spot of your lenses (that's something you have to try out yourself; you can try to stop down even further, but at some point diffraction will become an issue, compare sample images at de:Beugungsunschärfe#Bildbeispiele). Hope that helps a bit, --El Grafo (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Thank you so much!! This is the exact sort of detailed feedback I was looking for. I have another lens arriving tomorrow and will test that one out. Thanks again. @Ikan Kekek: Pinging you just as FYI. Thank you both, you've both been very kind. PumpkinSky talk 18:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@El Grafo: After reading your comments and looking over the photos, I understand much better what to do and look for. I agree, File:Pyrus pyrifolia (Shinko) inflorescence2.JPG is the best and I'm now going to put it up for VI. PumpkinSky talk 21:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@El Grafo: and @Ikan Kekek: Peulle promoted it to QI !!! Thanks guys! I'm also copying this thread to my Shinko section I linked to above to use as a reference tool. PumpkinSky talk 21:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Sumatran TigerEdit

Hi everyone,

I'm wondering what people think about this image. How can it be improved, I'd love to see it at QI (or VI) level. Thanks for any advice you can give! -- Jjm596 (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not a expert on photography (just learning) but hope you find my coments helpful, the reflections over tiger head and body are unpleasant, the dark framework seems to be more relevant in the photo than the tiger as it is in a central position its contrast and sharpness are better than the tiger, so it is very distracting from the main subject.
Regards --Cvmontuy (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, I've cropped it and hopefully the focus is more on the tiger now. Shame about the reflections, though. --Jjm596 (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
To me the side of his face near the window looks darker than the side away from the window. PumpkinSky talk 18:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is because the 'viewing area' i.e. where the photo was taken from, is partially indoors--Jjm596 (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment In addition to the unfortunate frame on the left and the distracting reflections on the right, there is a green colour cast to the image (probably due to the glass or automatic white balance of the camera) which does the orange subject a disservice. dllu (t,c) 18:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I will see what I can do about the green tint. Can I ask please, which do you think is the better of the these; the current version as seen here, or this one (which at least blocks out the left frame). Or perhaps even the original image? Thanks--Jjm596 (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Airport hall in MexicoEdit

This is a QI but can be a FP?

--Cvmontuy (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a bit of a problem that the leading lines guide the eye to the center of the image, but that part is not really in focus, as far as I can tell. Or you used a very small aperture and that's why it is not very sharp overall, I can't tell because the EXIF seems to be a little jumbled. The exposure time definitely suggests a small aperture. So maybe focus stacking would have helped. In general, I would set the quality bar pretty high for the photo because the subject is not that unusual or exciting in and of itself. In my opinion. — Julian H. 15:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your comment, today I have learned a couple of things, the Tokina lens is manual so no feed back on aperture but it was small, regards --Cvmontuy (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thai Game chickenEdit

I'd appreciate input on how this could be better. As for the other chickens in the photo, they were all moving around a lot and this was the by far the best shot that I got. Thank you. PumpkinSky talk 09:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment I think the photo can be improved by leaving more space in front of the chicken than behind. See: en:Lead room. Also, the photo seems a bit dark. dllu (t,c) 21:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Note I think the sharpness of the feathers is pretty good, especially the upper ones. PumpkinSky talk 22:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Hey PumpkinSky, nice work here. The focus and sharpness are good, which is always a tricky feat to accomplish when your subjects are darting around. One of the biggest considerations for me is always neatness around the edges of the frame and eliminating distracting elements that don't benefit the main subject. In that regard, I think the image could be improved by going for a square crop that gets rid of the unsharp, cropped-off chickens on the right. The tail feathers on the bottom-left are not ideal, but not quite as obtrusive IMO. This would improve the framing and allow for the suggestion of lead room. It's a large file, so you have lots of resolution to work with. Good to see you around, by the way - it's been quite a while! –Juliancolton | Talk 03:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Hey, Juliancolton, nice to see you again too. Yea, I've been mostly inactive and I have this photo hobby now. That's mostly what I do on wiki these days. I got the camera a few weeks ago. So I'm a newbie at this, but I'm trying to get better. I don't do much on en wiki. I've cropped per suggestions as a newer version so you should now see the cropped version on this page. Let me know what you and dllu think. Cropping is about all I know how to do so far; I'm not near where I can do things like remove shadows, so if it needs that, feel free. If you think it'd make QI or something, let me know. Thanks folks. PumpkinSky talk 09:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Juliancolton, I went ahead and put it up at QIC, first one for 13 April. PumpkinSky talk 05:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks good to me. dllu (t,c) 08:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Panorama of AT&T Park at night.jpgEdit

 
Panorama of a baseball stadium in San Francisco.

I painstakingly took this panorama on a midnight photo walk on Sunday, equipped with an adapted manual 50mm f/2.6 lens. The panorama consists of 42 frames (3 exposures, 2 rows of 7 portrait frames). What do people think of the composition? Should I clone out the lens flares (they are real lens flares due to extremely bright floodlights), or should I reshoot this with my Zeiss lens with much better coatings and flare resistance? dllu (t,c) 09:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dllu: nice one, it's obvious you put a lot of work into this! FPC candidate for me if you can get rid of the flares: Lens flare can of course be used as a stylistic device, but in this case I find those large blue blotches on the right pretty disturbing. They look like some kind of artefact and are not even easily recognized for what they are. Same for the purple spots, though I must admit that I find that large UFO-like one on the left kind of funny ;-). I like the composition, if anything the rocks in the foreground might be a tad too dominant (or maybe not, I didn't try cropping). "50mm f/2.6" sounds like a macro lens? Certainly delivers in terms of sharpness. The streaks are interesting, without the description I would have guessed for bats hunting for insects attracted to the floodlights. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I'll clone out the flares when I have time. The lens used was a Myutron FV5026W-F that is supposedly optimized for infinity focus and it is quite sharp. It's also useful for panoramas since it has very little distortion, no vignetting whatsoever, and has a set screw that can keep the aperture and focus ring fixed. Flaring is a severe drawback of this lens though, since it was designed for machine vision applications with controlled lighting. dllu (t,c) 20:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

QI nominationEdit

I have 10 photos that i don´t know if they are worhty to a QI nomination. Any advice? Thanks. Vanbasten 23 (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vanbasten 23: IMHO, the best ones are Lläut y competición.jpg and Bakar, Croacia.jpg. Lläut bancadas.jpg suffers from all the people in the background; in Lläut tolete 03.jpg the bolt is blurry, and in Lläut vista.jpg the boat is chopped off and blurry in the front. PumpkinSky talk 21:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@PumpkinSky: I really liked your opinion very much. Thank you very much for the contribution. ;) Vanbasten 23 (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Starting at zeroEdit

 
click to enlarge
 
newer and maybe improved version

I have uploaded this completely unprocessed image for input on what I can do with similar images to make them better and potentially FP or at least QI quality. I also want to learn how to make the best of what equipment and skill I have. I'm guessing this particular image is not ever going to be FP quality (even I think it's a bit boring), but it's here for me to learn from in terms of cropping, post-processing image enhancement, and what "operator errors" I made with the camera settings. I provided more info on the image, above and beyond the EXIF data, at File talk:Grazing Montana Horses.jpg and would welcome more in-depth discussion there, if it would be convenient. At present, my limitations are: 1) I'm not purchasing more lenses or another camera (for now--we'll see in 5 years...) 2) I don't have Photoshop and I really don't want to have to buy it. 3) My computer is a MacBook Pro laptop, so I don't know what, if anything can be done to help the monitor "pass" the calibration test because it's not (and it changes--some things better, some worse--if I tilt the screen, too... ). Any input is much appreciated. Montanabw (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

the picture is a little bit noisy, you can fix it using rawtherapee (http://rawtherapee.com) is free to download and use this is similar to ligthroom, another great tool is GIMP (https://www.gimp.org) similar to Photoshop but free to download and use, I use both on windows, but I understand that both have a mac version.--Cvmontuy (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
On the topic of free software, I also recommend darktable (http://www.darktable.org/), which is similar to lightroom. As for the photo, it looks good to me. In the future, I'd use f/8 for this type of photo for more depth of field to get both horses very sharp. I also agree with the crop suggestion... the bottom of the image is quite boring. dllu (t,c) 21:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the input everyone! This is helpful. Montanabw (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Can anyone comment on the adjustments I made to the image and tell me if I did it "right?" I cropped it from the original and did some simple color adjustments to brighten it up and make the colors look more real to my eye... but the eye of the beholder... Montanabw (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Coreopsis tinctoriaEdit

I'd appreciate input on this set of photos. Right now there are 3 versions: original, contrast fix, autofix. I used Pixlr. I also have GIMP but find the interface awkward. What are opinions of the original and how post-processing has gone so far? I think a tiny crop off the top and some of the left side might be in order too. After feedback I may put it up for QI. Thank you. PumpkinSky talk 20:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

PumpkinSky, this edition created a blue cast at the edge of the flower, would be better you treat that before the nomination, and you highly increased the noise of it, especially in the shadows, would be better if you clean that up.
When bright up the photo, you created a distraction at the bottom left and in the right top corners, this is a easy fix. And you bright up too much, some petals blow up, and we lost some information.
Just about the photo, it's a little bit unbalanced, you could crop more squarely to improve that.
Thanks for sharing, have good one. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much, @Rodrigo.Argenton:. I really appreciate it. I've tried to denoise it with gimp, the version with a time stamp of 21:53, 3 May 2017. Is this better? PumpkinSky talk 21:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Good enough for FP?Edit

I really enjoy User:Jakubhal's series of photos of the The International Festival of Street Theatre in Kraków, especially those showing performers connected by this orange costume. I think the picture I've posted here is the best of that series. Do you think I should nominate it at FPC, or do you think it would have trouble getting enough votes there? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Quite funny, but the background is distracting. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I find it very hard to predict what will and won't be successful at FPC. I have a photo nomination there now and it looked like it'll pass but now it looks like it won't. Oh well. Anyway, for this photo I think it might pass FPC but I also see Yann's point. Maybe make a copy and crop out the top at least a little below the lamp that is hanging down and see how it looks. Just my two cents. PumpkinSky talk 20:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid all of these street theatre photos would be deemed to have a distracting background, but better to find that out here than at FPC. Thanks for the feedback. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this FP Material?Edit

Regards --Cvmontuy (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see what other people say. My answer is, maybe, and it's worth nominating if you like. I'd prefer for the little strip of unsharp foreground to be cropped out, but others might not care about that. I find File:Spheres3cu.jpg a more interesting composition, but this photo has a neater composition and it's sharper, with softer light, so I think it's a more likely FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Overall I think one is better than the one Ikan mentions. I think cropping a tiny bit of foreground might help. PumpkinSky talk 01:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Another FP queryEdit

See my QIs at the bottom of my user page. The Wat Mae Chon photo was suggested for FPC but the vote was 3-2 so it didn't make it. Of the remaining ones, I think File:Bridge on the River Kwai - tourist plaza.JPG is probably the one with the best chance at FPC. Ideas for this or my other QIs that might make FP? PumpkinSky talk 01:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It certainly deserves the badges it got, but at FPC I would probably oppose for lack of WOW. It depicts its subject well, but simply filling the frame with your subject is not always the best option for FPC. There are some distracting elements in the frame that make it a bit busy (tree front right, boat on the left, pole and roofs in the background). There are some interesting forms and patterns in that bridge that could be worth exploring by getting closer and experimenting with camera angles, though. --El Grafo (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. More shots will have to wait til I go back to Thailand ;-) @El Grafo: Could you give me feedback on this photo, if you don't mind: File:Coreopsis tinctoria cultivar Uptick Cream and Red 4.JPG.
. Many thanks.PumpkinSky talk 12:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
That's a pretty good base to start from, but I think it could benefit from some more editing. Maybe a bit of levels adjustment, making the bright parts brighter. Maybe a little touch of sharpening (but be careful with that). I'd have to give it a try myself, but I don't have access to the right software right now. Speaking of which: For this kind of work, I wouldn't waste my time fiddling around with pixel-level editors like Photoshop or Gimp. Something like Adobe Lightroom or CaptureOne (to name the popular commercial ones) which mostly work on the image as a whole are usually used for this. Plus at some point in the future you will probably want to switch from in-camera JPGs to shooting RAW, and then knowing how to handle one of these will become incredibly useful. Free alternatives have already been named above: en:RawTherapee, en:Darktable if you're on Linux/Mac. Personally, I prefer en:LightZone for most of my quick edits, but that's a matter of taste. hth, --El Grafo (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Thank you very much. Based on this and someone else's recommendation, I bought a copy of Lightroom. I think I'll start with a copy of the original photo and see how it goes. PumpkinSky talk 11:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@El Grafo: See the Lightshop version. I deleted the other processed versions, so there're only the original and Lightshop one. I also processed another picture of this plant--it's below the first one. Any thoughts?
PumpkinSky talk 21:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Greetings,Edit

[[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by A ri gi bod (talk • contribs) 22:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, see the next entry. A ri gi bod (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This image may not contain the image of the 13th Dalai Lama as stated in the caption.Edit

Please, see this image: [[2]] It does not appear to be the 13th Dalai Lama.

I asked a question on the talk page, but I see no response. So, here I am.

First, It does not look like him.

Second, the link given to the source image was not there when I checked months ago and is not there today. So, I cannot verify caption. Also, this linked source is a commercial seller that may not provide accurate descriptions.

Also, the date about 1900 does not make sense. I am not aware that The 13th Dalai Lama traveled south of his nation, Tibet until he went to Darjeeling in 1910 to escape the Chinese invasion forces in Lhasa lead by General Chao Er-feng know to Tibetans as "Butcher Chao" and his cavalry.


Can the portion of the image's caption with the name "13th Dalai Lama" be deleted until a verifiable source can be found that proves the caption is accurate? Or what is the proper way to proceed with this issue? Also, what happens to the other webpages that currently use this image, if the caption changes?

Thank you, A ri gi bod (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Wich one of this can be FP?Edit


Regards, --Cvmontuy (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you nominate them at COM:QIC first to see what feedback you get. PumpkinSky talk 10:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
All has been nominated on COM:QIC, what is you opinion for FP? regards, --Cvmontuy (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hard for me to say. I find FPC way too unpredictable. Like the new POY, in my opinion that shouldn't be a FP at all. PumpkinSky talk 14:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
My personal favorite is the one on the left, but I suggest waiting a couple days. Someone else will probably come by and comment. PumpkinSky talk 22:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I like that best, compositionally. I would expect to vote for that one for FP if nominated, but I can't speak for other people. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

They all have high educational value and are sharp and all, but the light is too dull for such static objects for an FP on Commons where the voters are always looking for "wow" or "drama". The one to the right, which you have nominated at FPC has a cool angle and could work if it had better light. I think if you crop the middle one to focus on one section, so you really feel how big these things are, and give it a bit more contrast and light so that the details can be better seen, it would have a chance. Take a look at the suggestion I have made in my dropbox, it has more impact since you are almost afraid it will roll down and crush the guys next to it. If you try to get too much into a photo, you risk loosing the audience's interest. --cart-Talk 08:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments --Cvmontuy (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

unsharp zoom -- is it me or the camera?Edit

Not sure if this is the best forum for this, but I'm hoping to get some advice regarding where the weak link is: my camera or my technique.

I have an Olympus E-PL6, which is an entry-level micro 4/3 camera. In general I've been quite happy with it. I have a few different lenses for it, all of which have produced decent results. However, recently I decided I wanted to try a lens with a long zoom. Among other reasons, I've wanted to be able to take better pictures of birds.

First I tried the cheaper Olympus M.Zuiko 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 II. After playing with it for a couple days, I was really disappointed. I used a tripod and remote shutter, and took hundreds of pictures of various subjects outdoors in good weather. The lens was surprisingly dark, requiring either brightly lit subjects or a higher ISO, and the chromatic aberration was pretty bad. Perhaps these can be chalked up it being the cheaper option. Autofocus was severely lacking at 300mm, but even when I used manual focus on completely still subjects, the image quality was poor. This and this are what autofocus produced, more often than not. This one and this one are examples of the very best images I got with this lens, taken when the bird had been completely still and I was able to get closer than usual. They're still not very good quality.

Second I rented what I understand to be the nicest super telephoto available for MFT: Panasonic 100-400mm f4.0-6.3 pro. First thing I noticed was that, since it uses its own tripod mount, any attempt to zoom by normal means resulted in the camera itself rotating unless I held it down. That seems avoidable and squarely in the domain of user error. Again, however, I found the same problems -- though less pronounced this time. There was still a darkness issue, and at maximum zoom, even when the subject was perfectly still, I could not get a good, sharp image. For example, this turtle was maybe 15 feet in front of me and entirely still. No real brightness issue here, since it was pretty sunny. I took multiple shots, trying autofocus and manual, and this is more or less the result. Then there was this chipmunk, also nearby, and also pretty still when I took this. The biggest problem here is obviously that it was a bright day and I was shooting from under tree cover, so the light is working against me -- that much I can appreciate. But still, I'd figure that if I cranked up the ISO, while it would get noisy, it should at least be crisper? Switching to manual focus, there's this great egret and, finally a bullfrog, in a fairly bright area, quite still.

Worth mentioning none of these have been processed at all, and I'm certainly not saying they should be good -- there are other problems, indeed. What I'm looking for is some guidance regarding where my biggest problem is. Am I seeing limitations in the camera? In the MFT format? Am I approaching the settings, etc. incorrectly? Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk |  06:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure as I'm not experienced enough yet, but I am quite interested in what the feedback is on this. Best wishes. PumpkinSky talk 10:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • For the Olympus lens, looks like there's a focus calibration issue; the lens is always back focusing. The robin pictures at the end are simply quite dark and a bit shaken. You can bring the lens to a qualified technician to fix, it should be fairly simple. Besides producing out of focus images, it looks okay in sharpness (judging from the grass that's in focus), par for the course for a $400 telephoto lens. For the 100-400 pictures, particularly the great egret picture, there's some weird pattern going on in out-of-focus specular highlights. When there's such a strong pattern in out-of-focus point light sources, it's likely to be an optical issue. See: [3] Either: 1) you may be using a low quality filter, 2) you're shooting through a glass window, 3) the rented lens is broken (it had possibly been dropped a few times by a previous renter), 4) there are severe temperature differences, causing mirage to degrade image quality, (5) the lens was shaken or the image stabilization was not working properly. Telephoto lenses are very sensitive things as they have a very low optical power. In other words, they bend the light only very slightly to begin with, and bending it slightly more will ruin the sharpness. There's a reason why people drop $8000 on high quality 400mm primes. dllu (t,c) 15:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Dllu: thanks. I purchased the Olympus lens to try it out as I couldn't find it to rent. The results were so bad I sent it back with a note about the results just in case they wanted to take a look. Regarding the other, I wasn't using a filter, wasn't shooting through a glass window, and the temperature was very mild, so it seems the last remaining issues you raise point to possibly having used two defective lenses? Sheesh. Conspicuously missing from your list of possible causes is the camera body -- is there no way it's responsible? — Rhododendrites talk |  18:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • For the Olympus lens, the body could definitely have been the culprit. There is some miscalibration in the autofocus which can be either in the lens or the body. For the Panasonic lens, the problems clearly optical. The only body-related issue that can cause that would be a malfunctioning of the in-body image stabilization of the PEN E-PL6. Try testing it on a tripod with the image stabilization turned off and see if it helps at all. dllu (t,c) 23:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Little girl photo for FP?Edit

I came across this photo and thought it may be FP worthy. Any thoughts on this? PumpkinSky talk 20:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)