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}}



Archive



Question on technical image qualityEdit

These are images from a camera I bought last year. The camera is set to maximum resolution at maximum quality.

Does the image quality stand a chance at QI? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry to say, but honestly, I don't think it is likely to get promoted. The main concern is that the highlights on the most interesting part of the image are blown out, and the top edge of the photo is very blurry indeed. Also, the detail is rather poor and noisy throughout. It's a shame, because the view is quite interesting. dllu (t,c) 16:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your candid answer. Actually, looking at the histogram, the image is quite nicely exposed to the right. But that is about all on the plus side. The view is nice, actually there is some technical challenge to bring a camera into that position. I may retake the image when the light is better, and with a proper camera. Thank you for that blurry, poor, noisy assessment which I share, I appreciate the independent confirmation. A pity because it was not a really cheap camera, and from a camera company with some reputation. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree that you're probably being held back by your camera. Now, I'm a Nikon guy myself, but when image quality is actually a priority, it's always going to be hard to get good value for money from a point and shoot camera, no matter whose name is on it. Sensor size matters when it comes to landscape photography. The Coolpix S6600 has a 1/2.3" sensor – that's less than 28.5 square mm – about one thirteenth of a DX sensor and about one thirtieth of a full-frame sensor. What you paid for with the S6600, then, was not image quality, but pointless megapixels, the compact form factor and the flip-out screen.
Using a DSLR would have other benefits besides a larger sensor (and better glass in front of it). You would also be able to use filters, which might help with some of that haze and bring some detail out of that blue tint.
Equipment aside, whatever camera you use, you should always try to make the most of what you have when setting up your shot. According to the file's metadata, you had image stabilisation/vibration reduction turned on, so I'm guessing you shot handheld. For a photo like this, that will always produce a suboptimal result. For best results, use a tripod and make sure VR is off. I would not be surprised if some of that blotchiness is the result of vibration reduction. Since you're zoomed in slightly at 70 mm (in 35 mm equivalent terms), any camera shake will be exacerbated, and VR is going to have to work harder.
I don't know what kind of exposure control you have on that camera, but the point of merging exposures is usually to get highlight details from a generally underexposed shot and shadow details from a generally overexposed shot, which means that those exposures need to be made deliberately. In this case, the centre part of the castle is overexposed in both, and you don't need a histogram to tell you that – the sooner you stop looking at histograms and start looking at photos and trusting your eyes, the happier you will be. :-) LX (talk, contribs) 19:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

HDR photoEdit

HDR photo from five exposures.

Unprocessed JPEGs straight out of camera:

I took an HDR photo of a dramatic sunset that I'm quite pleased with. There was no tone mapping, just curves, a simulated neutral density filter of 1 EV, and white balance. I want to submit it to com:FPC, but I'm worried that people will find it overprocessed. So, I'm looking for a second opinion on whether this level of processing looks right before I submit it for FPC. dllu (t,c) 16:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't think it looks overprocessed. The colours look good but there's a lot of magenta CA at the buildings which should be removed. Regarding FPC I'm not sure about the composition which looks quite random. The people are not helpful, either. I'm sorry, but although the sky looks great indeed I'd not support this nomination at FPC. --Code (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the critique. I'll think more carefully about the composition. I think it's nice to get the landmarks of the two universities in the same shot, but I'm not too sure how to make it work. This was the approximate field of view of the picture. As for people in the frame, with dramatic sunsets like these, it's hard to avoid people coming out to look at the sunset. I suppose I could take many shots and blend them to get rid of people, but the lighting changes significantly even within 2 minutes. The random crap on the ground due to construction doesn't help either. And thanks for pointing out the magenta fringes... this lens gives me a hell of a headache with its strong CA. When my new apochromatic lens arrives next year, it should be better I hope. dllu (t,c) 18:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Just for curiosity: Which lens are you using? --Code (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Voigtlaender Heliar Classic VM 75mm f1.8, which has six spherical elements in three doublet groups. The lens has rather good bokeh and is quite compact for a fast medium telephoto; the lateral CAs are its biggest weakness. So, it's more of a portrait lens and less suitable for this type of shot. I recently ordered a Voigtlaender Apo-Lanthar 90mm f/3.5 SL, which is highly recommended by Ming Thein, one of my favourite photographers, and has almost no lateral CA, so we shall see if that makes better photos after it arrives sometime between Mon. Dec. 21 - Tue. Jan. 5. dllu (t,c) 19:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

FlowersEdit

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)

PanoramaEdit

I am here again, I create this panorama and I like to know if all is ok, the stichings and the perspectives, etc. Regards Ezarateesteban 02:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The main issue is that the horizon is tilted. Other than that, the technical quality is okay as far as I can see. On the other hand, you might want to think more about the composition of the panorama. dllu (t,c) 03:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Read in another language