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


File:Butterfly 06821.JPGEdit

 
Eurema hecabe

I saw this photo in QIC. Does it look like an FP to you? Seems to me like it could be, but having just had a less than thrilling experience nominating another insect photo by Vengolis at FPC, I thought I'd ask here first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I find predicting FPC baffling. For this photo the one area I see that might maybe be a problem is the bright sun on the camera left side of the butterfly, especially around the head and torso. Perhaps try cutting the exposure there a little. Just my 2 cents. PumpkinSky talk 21:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. Vengolis, what do you think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek I don't consider myself a good photographer or expert in this field. I have to admit that quality of my images are no where near the quality of FP's of by Charlesjsharpor Jkadavoor.But I would like to hear what others think about my photo.Thanks for your review PumpkinSky -Vengolis (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Vengolis is indeed made a lot of good works and he is using same camera and lens as of me. The difference is, he shoots direct jpgs. Nowadays it is very difficult to get FP level quality from straight out of camera. The quality will improve dramatically if can shoot RAW and post process. CaptureOne Express is free for Sony RAW files. (In this butterfly, light is not good and the butterfly has its fore-wing improperly developed. I like this dragonfly photo except the flash reflection on the leaf.) Jee 03:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
This is an OK QI, but is not sharp enough for FP. And the lighting is not well chosen. But what went wrong technically? I suspect the shutter speed is too low or the focus point is not set properly. That can be checked. I can't work out if the picture was taken auto-focus or manual focus. If manual focus was used then it is possible eyepiece is not adjusted correctly. If auto focus was used then it is possible camera is not set up correctly. I try to shoot at 1/500 hand held when I don't have much time. I don't get good results at 1/200 when I'm crouching down on the ground. I don't know how good the lens is, but Jee manages to shoot super images with it, though as we've discussed, I think 1/500 daylight gives images with more definition than 1/250 flash. The results with this lens/body are unfortunately not going to be as good as my expensive Canon 100mm Macro lens/70D crop sensor body and all my lenses have Image Stabilization.
It's interesting that everyone talks about RAW. I do shoot RAW, but actually process from JPG* most of the time using Photoshop CS6. I've sent my RAW files to a couple of Wikipedia's FP processing experts, but haven't been wowed by their efforts. But I keep the RAW files in case I learn how to do better! * You have to stop the camera doing any noise reduction etc.Charles (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much to everyone for your comments in this thread. Vengolis, I think you are a very good photographer, but I hope the very specific remarks upthread are of use to you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

File:2016 Prowincja Krabi, Ko Lanta Yai, Plaża Klong Khong (29).jpgEdit

 
A Krabi sunset

I really like this composition and photo, but do you think it's special enough for an FP nomination or not? I thought I'd ask here first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Second opinionEdit

 
This is looking down a canal in burano.

I would like some advice on this photo, and perhaps a comment relating on its chances for a FP/something else. Thanks in advance, Anish Mariathasan (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Anish Mariathasan: The scene certainly has some potential, but the lower right corner will almost certainly prevent it from becoming a FP or QI – looks like a finger in front of the lens? VI would require geocoding, a better description, more specific categorization into the appropriate sub-category of Category:Canals in Burano and no other picture of this subject being more useful (which I can't judge right now as I don't know which canal it is showing). There are also some blown out highlights on the bright surfaces of the boats. If your camera allows you to set an exposure compensation, something like -1 EV might help to prevent this for similar scenes in the future. Moving one or two steps to the right could have brought you a more balanced/symmetrical composition. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice El Grafo. Yes, the finger obstruction wasn't in another photo - I took 2. I was wondering whether you could give me some extra advice on how to improve these photos, and as to which is better (apologies for the low resolution in the sunset in venice). Thanks, Anish Mariathasan (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

identify Mercedes-BenzEdit

This old MB needs a Category:Mercedes-Benz vehicles by type. Or send me please to appropriate Commons:Object identification requests page

--aimaina hikari (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

My photographEdit

I have recently uploaded a picture of a flower

 
File:Iris(in the garden)

.Please critique the picture .I want to take better pictures of flowers later onForceradical (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It has a dust spot on upper left side, the aperture at 5.6 gets a very small deep of field only a small part of the flower is sharp, aparently it has motion blur too, IMO there is too much background on the left producing a unbalanced composition, regards --Cvmontuy (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC).

FP candidate?Edit

Do you think any of these has FP posibilities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvmontuy (talk • contribs) 18:11, 31 July 2017‎ (UTC)

Sorry for the late answer, but FWIW I think this was indeed the best choice out of that set. --El Grafo (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

How would you make this better?Edit

I took this photo of a BLU-82 at the National Museum of the Air Force a couple weeks ago and I've been debating on how to improve it. I try to avoid post processing as much as possible unless I intended to beforehand but I know there is more going on in this shot then I want. I'm not necessarily going for a QI since it's an inside museum shot but I feel it's a good picture as well as better than the current profile picture of a BLU-82 on wikipedia in my opinion. So what are your thoughts on this? -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 2:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to give you technical advice, but what I notice is that the composition is pretty good, with the major exception that the BLU is cut off in the near right corner, the photo is probably too grainy for QI, and the lighting, which you have no control over, has not been kind to the subject. You also haven't found any category for the photo, which it needs for any kind of feature and should have, anyway, and also, you really should give some basic explanation in your file description on what a BLU-82 is and does, because otherwise, how would people know? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I sincerely appreciate your timely reply. I’m working on adapting several other shots to be possibly uploaded in the future so this is all very helpful. The categories I fixed as that was simple. I’m working on a short description as well and will be adding that soon. The grain is somewhat my own fault as I felt the RAW was too flat. When not viewed in full zoom I think works. The corner though I don’t think I can fix. I still think it’s better than the current one on Wikipedia as the other profiles look very over or under exposed but I agree, I don’t think this is a QI. Also is there a simple way of adding the UTC time to your edits that I haven’t figured out or is everyone writing it out themselves like I am? -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


File:2017 Tunele kolejowe pod Świerkową Kopą.jpgEdit

 
Rail tunnels under Świerkowa Kopa

Hi, everyone. I'm really loving this form, with its near-symmetry, and I'm feeling like nominating this picture by Jacek Halicki at FPC, but I think it might get voted down because maybe others won't feel wowed by the motif of the end of a rail tunnel. If anyone would like to give an opinion, that would be great. Otherwise, I'll have to make my own decision without guidance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ikan, I can see why you like this and I agree, at least to some degree. But to me it's missing that certain little something that elevates it above "snapshot" level. Probably one of those images I would pass on voting at FPC. --El Grafo (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. I will look for photos that are more obviously breathtaking or striking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Zirkus Chnopf in Zurich.jpgEdit

 
Zirkus Chnopf in Zurich

Hello, this is a photo of the facade of "Zirkus Chnopf" building in Zurich, Switzerland. Please let me know what you think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootzurich (talk • contribs) 10:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Shootzurich: that's a very interesting subject, but I think it has the potential for "more". The car and the graffiti feature some nice colors, but they look a bit flat in your image. Looks like this was shot on an overcast day – depending on the location it might be worth a try shooting it again in the warm light of an autumn morning or afternoon to get more punchy colors. That worked pretty well for me here. If that's not possible, maybe try tweaking the white balance a bit towards the warmer regions? Composition-wise, I'd try to keep the grey wall and window on the far left out of the frame, possibly the other window as well. Maybe include some more of the blue window (?) in the bottom right corner, or zoom in to include only the front of the car together with the cupcake? Just some random thoughts, I think this is definitely a subject spending some more time on if you're still in the area.
By the way, if the graffiti is signed it would be fair to credit the sprayer, possibly using {{Art Photo}} instead of {{Information}} (with {{FoP-Switzerland}} in the |artwork license = parameter). Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Eclipse/QI QuestionEdit

 
Diamon Ring in White House , TN

I just got back from Tennessee early this week and I’ve been going through the shots I have from Mondays Eclipse. I’m not sure this is my best shot but it’s useful to illustrate my question. Even shots before totality and certainly shots during taken totality will not be 2MP if you consider the black pixels from the dark sky. Can any photograph of the eclipse be nominated for a QI considering the circumstances of photographing a total eclipse? Also I’d like any comments/opinions on this photo. Thank you in advance! Sixflashphoto (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sixflashphoto: You've got 2027 × 2027 = 4,108,729 pixels in this one, so you definitely should be fine at QI regarding image size even if you crop a bit more. I think a bit of black around the sun is necessary for this kind of image: this, for example, has a far too tight crop for my taste.
Regarding the photo itself, well, to me it looks like a typical well-done shot of the eclipse. One thing I haven't seen in other pictures, though, it that brighter grey ring on the outer part of the moon (Can you see what I mean? I think my English might be lacking here …). Do you know where that comes from? Did you maybe remove some CA/color-fringing and this is what was left over? --El Grafo (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@El Grafo: I apologize for my late reply. I’ve still been getting situated since returning from seeing the Eclipse. I’ve added a different crop. I’m undecided myself on if I like it more but I would like your opinion. I’ve also looked at other shots I took during totality. I believe the gray fringe is just a result of a relatively long exposure (f38 at 1.5sec). I’ve seen other shots during totality that did have CA’s from what I believe were solar flares on the opposite side of the sun, but I did not remove any CA’s on this one. Frankly I find removing CA’s on Eclipse shots extremely painstaking.
Just to experiment I worked around with the color correction in RAW and couldn’t do anything about that gray ring. I do think I made it a bit better by just slightly bringing up the blacks. You lose a bit of the Outer Corona but I feel that’s alright in this particular shot.
So I would like to know what you think of this?
@Sixflashphoto: I was just curious about that ring. I think the picture looks pretty good – that's all I can say, I don't have the expertise for anything beyond that ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

How would you make this better?Edit

I really like this picture. This original terminal is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It's taken after recent roof repairs and I'm sure it's useful on the commons. But I know it could be better. So my question is quite simple really, how would you improve this? I appreciate the help.Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but to me it looks a tad tilted to the right. It also looks a little under exposed. PumpkinSky talk 01:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The lighting is rather boring. Perhaps revisit it when the weather and time of day is more interesting? For example blue hour photos tend to be good. A clear day with clouds against a blue sky is better than overcast (though you have to watch out for harsh shadows). You may also want to stand farther back and use a longer focal length, or perhaps try to get the whole building in the frame. Google maps shows that there is plenty of empty space around the building. Since it's September, you can try shooting the building in autumn, when the trees have red leaves.
As for technical quality, there are some green/magenta chromatic aberrations, which you can easily fix using Adobe Lightroom or Darktable or any equivalent. I think Nikon DSLRs have the ability to automatically fix chromatic aberrations. Talking about postprocessing, it's usually advisable to apply digital perspective correction for architectural photos. dllu (t,c) 02:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sunset over lakeEdit

Would love your thoughts! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Napoleon's veteransEdit

Before starting restoration I'd like to check for considerable compression artefacts in any of these 15 photos (I suspect some but not entirely sure). Alternatively, those without artefacts could be singled out. This is a set. Thanks in advance. Brandmeister (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)