Open main menu

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 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.

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.



A rainbow in Puerto Varas, ChileEdit

Could it be a quality image? Scheridon (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The background shows overprocessing, the main subject has very little detail, IMO is not a QI, sorry --Cvmontuy (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm very grateful but still very lost.Edit

Hi everyone thanks for your help. I do get lost amongst guidelines a lot.

I was hoping someone would mind taking the time to point out which of my latest six uploads are any good for the commons, which could be improved digitally by me prior to uploading for next time, and which would probably just be better off remaining my personal collection.

I hope to avoid wasting peoples time in my future uploads if I learn this with these specific examples.

Thankyou very much

E.3 (Talk to Dr Peter James Chisholm). Suggestor of the project Wikiwide on MetaWiki [1]. Suggestor of avoiding particular English words in the Commons 03:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  • sunset:, composition the human siluete in the lower corner is distracting IMO, very little detail in the picture,
  • ocean fish: It has a strong color cast (too green), the image is blurred,
  • snorkeling, lack of detail,
  • Island off coast, it looks overexposed and without detail
regards, --Cvmontuy (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this an FP?Edit

I really like this photo, but because complaints about shadows often sink FP noms, I thought I'd run it past you all here before I more seriously considered nominating it:

Wat Saphan Hin

Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Ikan Kekek: sorry, missed this one. Seems okay to me. Not exactly outstanding but still an FP. Shadows don't seem to be to bothering. Btw what's Template:Clear? ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 03:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know. Someone else probably put that in. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
answer to this --El Grafo (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • What I find a bit strange is that the pillars look like they are leaning out at the top rather than inwards. The latter could be expected due to the perspective. Looks over-corrected to me. Apart from that it looks technically better than most of the images you can find on Google, but the composition so very much staight-forward that I'm tempted to call it "boring". The shadows are fine for me though. It would probably not get a support from me, over-all. --El Grafo (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed appraisal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Potential FPs?Edit

I've been sitting on a bunch of images for a while, unsure if I should bother with FPC. Would love some feedback here (either a definitive yes/no, or ideas for improvement).

I don't know, maybe by putting a bunch up here I risk this getting less attention than if I just posted one; I guess we'll find out. Thanks for your patience. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  05:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: IMHO only the Western Coneflower could possibly be an FP. The others are too unsharp. I'd give the coneflower picture a solid support if you nominated it. Cheers. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 05:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm surprised to see that you found all of the others to be unsharp. There may be other problems, but the e.g. vulture, starling, cactus, etc. don't seem like sharpness would be a big issue? — Rhododendrites talk |  15:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Entschuldigung, missed your reply. Clarification: I meant out of all the botanical shots. Sorry for the inconvenience! ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 05:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: I like File:Comme des Garcons at the Met (62473).jpg. The dalia is also nice. File:Turkey vultures (01731).jpg would be OK with a crop at the bottom. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: See my note for a suggested crop. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Yann. I'm going to open it up again in Lightroom and may nominate it soon. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Uploaded a new version (crop, but also a bit of a perspective adjustment, tweak the denoising, etc.), and nominated. Thanks for the help. — Rhododendrites talk |  21:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I started adding/removing images above in addition to updating their status, but that seems potentially obnoxious to occupy so much space on this page for so long. Instead, I just started a section on my talk page that I plan on keeping updated. We'll see if anyone else looks, I guess. :) Thanks for the comments all, after this post the bot can just archive this. — Rhododendrites talk |  00:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

this non-wikipedia picture (composition critique)Edit

@Poco a poco, George Chernilevsky, Basotxerri, Ikan Kekek, Peulle: Critiques for the composition of this image? ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 14:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The composition in this picture that is OK and rather ordinary: central, nothing remarkable and no errors. Overall, a good image. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Per George. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree, too centered, too narrow crop, a good image to illustrate a Wikipedia article but if you are wondering whether I would support it as FP, my answer is no, it lacks something and the lighting is not great, either. Poco2 09:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Well-shot bird, very bright light. Probably a QI, but even that isn't certain because of the light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


I'm new to doing photographs of architecture and wanted some feedback to improve my skills.

Unsigned entry by Dktue (talk)

Hello Dktue,
I'm not an expert yet but I think with 10mm focal length you are using an extreme wide angle lens. This is not ideal for architecture photography because the images look distorted. Maybe sometimes it is necessary in a narrow road where you can't take a picture of a house from farther away but usually it looks better to increase the distance to the building and use zooming. Some of your images need perspective correction to get the vertical lines really vertical.
Andreas Stiasny (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Fountain about to be in a thunderstormEdit

Angela Conner 'Renaissance' water sculpture, Hatfield House, Hertfordshire

I quite like the juxtaposition. Is this a possible FP? Why or why not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  • @Ikan Kekek: Possibly an FP; the lighting is in no way perfect but the picture itself is OK. Would probably vote   Neutral on it. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 02:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Too much going on in this one for my taste. The fountain in the foreground is already quite dynamic. The sky looks dramatic, but it is very close to the main subject in terms of tone and color, so they kind of merge together into a busy wall of grey. Doesn't help that the water reservoir below the sculpture basically has the same color as well. The same composition taken on another day with different light and weather could work very well, but this is just too much for me in a death metal kind of way. From that series, I find numbers 3 and 4 much more interesting – at least as far as composition goes. --El Grafo (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I am not fan of this kind of modern art, but the picture is quite good. Composition is nice, without any disturbing element. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek I'd support it at FPC. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. Maybe I'll nominate it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Is this picture FP level ?Edit

Nice bird

--Cvmontuy (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cvmontuy! It's a nice shot but I'm missing a composition here. The other crane is hidden. I'd like it to be well visible, sharp and complementary to the crane on the left, or not to be there at all. Now it only provides a distraction and makes the background kind of messy. I hope it helps. Keep on shooting! --Podzemnik (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Opinion on shots like thisEdit

Just want some opinion on shots like this, could one possibly pass FPC? ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 03:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I like the creative DOF but it doesn't focus on anything interesting. If there was at least a nicely visible tongue or something, I think it could be passable. Your shot reminded me of this :) --Podzemnik (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks haha ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 03:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
This specific image as several minor issues that in combination would make it at least difficult for it to succeed at FPC (sharpening halo along beak; lack of lead room; bright highlights in the corners distracting from dark subject; lack of detail in the shadows; some might call for more DOF (although I'd disagree); slightly front-focused; …). But in principle: yes, I think something like this could very well succeed at FPC. --El Grafo (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible FP?Edit

I'm thinking about nominating some photos for FP, but I want to know which have a chance. I post here few pictures that i think are good. --LoMit (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi LoMit! Your pictures are really nice, good quality pictures. For buildings, I think the standard is set up quite high right now. The subject should be "special" enough, light and resolution too. Let's take your pictures from left to right:
1) Nice but standard night photo (verticals are not vertical but we can leave that now). What I'd do is to try to capture it a bit earlier during the blue hour, it's usually more wowy. Try to impress by composition (like here) or quality (like here). Try to find an angle where no disturbing elements like cars or people are presented. If you can't get rid of them, make them part of the composition and give the impression like they meant to be there
2) Beautiful but still not that special. Different light could make it special
3) Rather ordinary. It could work if, for example, cars and people weren't there, and it was all foggy and slippery. Compare eg. with this
4) Again, standard night shot. Try it closer to the blue hour when the lights are already on but it's still light enough so the naturals colors stand out. Compare with this. This light on one of your photos is great
5) Nice, FP potential, but neither light nor resolution are extraordinary. Also, cars kind of spoil it.
The key factor in FP is "wow" effect - you look at the picture and your lips whisper "wow". Light is usually what's the key to it. I hope it helped. Feel free to nominate the pictures anyway, these are only my opinions :) All the best, --Podzemnik (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for meaningful opinion :). I looked again through the FP photos of other authors and I understand, what really is this "wow" effect. I have to think about it --LoMit (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Need your presence at Featured video candidatesEdit

  We request the honor of your presence at Featured video candidates
Dear User,
Featured video candidates needs your help and you can participate by reviewing or nominating your videos for the FV tag.

You can start reviewing/nominating videos now. Welcome! -- Eatcha (Talk-Page ) 20:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)