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}}



I am testing my new camera with flowers, I like to see opinions about it, regards!! Ezarateesteban 23:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

  • In general, they are quite sharp. On a technical note, the amount of image noise is higher than expected for ISO 100, especially colour noise. My guess is that you didn't use any sort of noise reduction in RawTherapee. Try playing around with the chrominance slider to see if you can make it look smoother. Composition-wise, while the photos are reasonably well-composed, the background is somewhat busy and distracting. Try to look for nice-looking backgrounds (green leaves and grass, as opposed to brown dirt), and get the background to be as simple as possible. Try using a larger aperture (lower f-stop), but be careful if that causes part of the flower to be blurry as well (in that case, try focus bracketing) --- it's a tricky balance between isolating the subject from the background and not having all of the subject in focus. But I think the last picture, for example, has a mostly planar subject so you can probably shoot wide open and still have the both flowers in focus. Also, you can try adjusting the black point to make the background darker to let the flower stand out more --- the last picture in particular seems to have a rather high black point, causing the colors to appear slightly washed out (maybe that's your style -- everyone's preferences are different and some people like the slightly washed-out look because it looks like film). Lastly, for the last picture I would crop it like this. For the second picture, I would crop out the stuff on the bottom edge like so. dllu (t,c) 02:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Not the chrominance bar, because can make some colors (red and green especially) duller, luminance bar slider, with luminance at 100 and luminace/detail at 94-95. --C messier (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Jet d'eau de GenèveEdit

Genève lac01 2016-03-06.jpg

This was a lucky shot, but I wonder if a different framing could improve it. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

KlausFoehl, this is quite hard to tell, because I don't know what is around that frame. However, I'm missing some foreground element that could give a better and not flat image, the angle also create this sensation of flatness, even the boat didn't create another layer, mixing itself with the marine.
The fountain also could be in a better position, it's not in the middle, and also not on the thirds, that make our eyes dances and not rest on this element. And if the boat was at the end of the water trajectory, it would provide a better rhythm to the photo, making our eyes walk all the fountain and rest on the boat.
-- RTA 15:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
That's a tricky one. What I like about this image are the two lines formed by the water and the boats to the left of it. They have the same color (which strongly contrasts the background), nearly the same length and form a 90° angle. That's basically half a square and my brain will easily add the second half. I think this is what I'd try to focus on with the composition. Do you have other shots of that? Maybe one where the camera was pointed more towards the left, leaving out the houses on the right but still including the whole Jet? --16:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Genève lac02 2016-03-06.jpg

Well, I do have a few more photos, but you see there is not much foreground. I could not park my car there, I was lucky enough that the traffic light (appropriately named "feu rouge") was giving me a minute or two. And then most of the time persons or other cars would be in the way. Crossing the lanes would have been unsafe. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@KlausFoehl: I've left an image note on that one, approximately showing a crop that could work quite nicely in my eyes (lots of empty space on the left). Needs a bit of rotation to make the horizon/pier level first (I'd say about 1.5° clock-wise). The first one has a much nicer sky, imho, but maybe this can be tweaked through processing as well. --El Grafo (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Genève lac02mod 2016-03-06.jpg
@El Grafo, Rodrigo.Argenton: Thank you for feedback and suggestions. I finally got round to work on the crop of the 2nd photo, this is what it looks like. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@KlausFoehl: That's working much better for me composition-wise. If this one had the technical quality, dramatic lighting and maybe the boat of the first one, it might actually have a chance at FPC … --El Grafo (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
@El Grafo: You are luring me into trying a stitched image. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Any feed back on these birds.Edit

I have been taking birds pics for my bird watching hobby. These are some pics I have uploaded. Wanted to have inputs on how to improve them. Any input is welcome.Yndesai (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Laitche, JJ Harrison any thoughts?
From my point of view, Yndesai, you should work a lit in post bring more brightness to the photo. -- RTA 16:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Yndesai, Seems a bit blurry overall (not only the birds but branches and the rocks). Not sure about the reason but I think if you could take static subjects sharply, you would take birds more sharp :) Regards. --User:Rodrigo.Argenton (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for input Rodrigo.Argenton. I will improve brightness. Also last one is having motion blur I could see.Yndesai (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Read in another language