Commons:Photography critiques

Graphics community: Graphic Lab · Graphics Village Pump · Picture Requests · 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 tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days, and the other sections after 90 days, unless archiving has been postponed or suppressed through the use of {{subst:DNAU}}


West high land white terrierEdit


Thank you in advance for any feedback you can provide Regards --Cvmontuy (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi Cvmontuy, some quick thoughts: Focus is right on the eyes – well done! But the lighting situation could be improved in my opinion: It looks like she's sitting below a lamp hanging from the ceiling. Most of the hair on the top of her head is overexposed, you've lost quite a bit of detail there. On the other hand, the area around her mouth and especially the lower parts of her nose are pretty dark. Maybe try to find a spot with more even/less direct light, or add a second light source from the side. The bright pillow in the background is a bit distracting for me. Otherwise a charming portrait, I like the upright ears and the slightly tilted head: looks like she's paying close attention to what you're doing with that black box in front of your face ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, very good comments, best regards --Cvmontuy (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

old doorEdit

Same RAW file, 2 very different images. The color version would probably more useful for something like Wikipedia, but which one do you prefer as an image on its own (and why)? I made the BW version after reading Michael Freeman's excellent The Complete Guide to Black & White Digital Photography (I think it was Colin who suggested it to me → thanks a lot!). It took me quite a while to come up with something I actually liked, so I'm very interested in comments and opinions regarding the BW conversion. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

El Grafo, not sure if this is the feedback that you wanted, but the color version has nice nearly complementary pastel colours, so I don't think it is a good candidate to test a BW version. --C messier (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Luminosity clipping in PhotoshopEdit

I am beginning to use Photoshop for post-processing (I used DxO Optics pro so far), and I have problems with highlights and dark areas clipping. For this picture

SNCF French railways locomotive 040DG

I have carefully set values and curves so that there would be no clipping, except for some blown highlights on the windows, and very little of it. Drowned (black) areas are negligible. However, when I save the file in Photoshop and it gets displayed in Lightroom, more clipping appears. If I export to jpg and then opens the jpg in DxO, the clipping shows very clearly.

So I would like to know if, in your view, luminosity is clipped beyond what is acceptable, and what I am doing wrong. Of course, any other comment on the picture is welcomed.

Thanks. --Albert Bergonzo (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Bergonzo (talk • contribs) 17:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Cathedral of ZacatecasEdit


Thank you in advance for any feedback you can provide Regards --Cvmontuy (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I dabble only slightly in photography, so I wouldn't be able to advise you on technical matters, but I will say that this photo is pretty good and I think it would pass if nominated at COM:Quality images candidates. The focus is good throughout most of the picture, and only in a few places do you have blown out whites. I think one of the bigger challenges you are faced with in photographing this kind of scene is how to avoid blowing out and/or posterizing either the whites or the blacks. There are some black water towers(?) on tops of buildings that look a little posterized. The only really significant area of unsharpness I see is in the near right corner. People have different levels of tolerance for unsharp foregrounds, but you could consider cropping them, or a majority of their area, out. But overall, I find the picture solidly good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)