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 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.


Mimosa pudica flowerEdit

Will this qualify for FP, thanks Deepugn (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  Comment Sorry, it is not very sharp and it has too much image noise for FP. What kind of lens was used? For this type of photo, I would recommend moving close and using a high quality 90mm macro lens rather than stand far away with a 420mm lens. dllu (t,c) 23:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Bubo bubo winter 1.jpg reviewEdit

Hello. I'd like some opinions on whether this image can succeed in a valued image and in a feature picture nomination. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 10:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Advice for blurry areas of a stackEdit

New version (see old version here)

I liked this plant at a relative's house recently so decided to take a few pictures with my new macro lens to stack together. When I got back home, tweaked, and stacked, I was disappointed to see several blurry spots. What advice would you give for how to deal with them (presuming I don't have easy access to the plant to take more)? I'll leave that open ended. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk |  05:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: It's normal for a focus stacking software to produce such blurry spots when presented with a stack such as yours. When objects of different depth position overlap each other, the blur of one (the one out of focus) will bleed into the area of the sharply rendered object behind it. This occurs when doing the focus stack with moving the focusing ring on the lens or using a macro rail to move the entire camera forwards (or backwards) in increments. I'm aware of one technique that seems to solve this problem at the source: by building a special lens that has lens elements in front being held by the tripod, and lens elements behing which will be moved together with the sensor to do the refocus. On the software side, I found that Photoshop is not the best choice for doing focus stacks and it's prone to producing such errors. The best program I've tried is Helicon Focus, which also offers an easy to use retouching tool if you purchase the Pro version. Note, however, that as I explained earlier, blurryness will bleed into other areas, so you will find that some sharply rendered areas are made useless by the blur of other objects, so the retouching can only go so far until you enter that transition area. --Lucasbosch 00:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Lucasbosch: Thanks. So I downloaded the trial version of Helicon Focus and tried to process the same images. The initial result seemed to me actually a bit worse than the Photoshop result. Mode C seemed to be the one that was recommended for images with lots of little changes in depth/detail, but the results were blurry in some areas that weren't in Photoshop, and several areas had little halos. The bigger problem was when the images needed more alignment work prior to blending (i.e. Helicon made kind of a mess of it; Photoshop was just not-so-great). I'm thinking that may be user incompetence, though. :) This particular image, however, was indoors, with a tripod, so no significant alignment was required (the other one I referenced was a plant outdoors, in the wind). The real strength of this software, to me, seems to be the retouching tool, which is great. Takes some time, and is easier with some images than others, but it's really strong. Curious as to your thoughts on the new version (uploaded over the previous one -- see image/caption). Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk |  04:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Both images aren't perfect and would need retouching, I can't really decide which one is worse. – Lucas 08:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Storsjön, Sandviken - Pier near bångsEdit

I'd really appreciate any feedback on this image, as far as Quality images or Featured Pictures go. Ciridae (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Take this for what it's worth, and I hope people with more technical knowledge say something, but, here are my comments: I like the composition, but it's a bit noisy with some pixellation in the sky. Fix that and nominate for QI. I don't see this as an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Washington MonumentEdit

I took this photo earlier this year and was wondering if it is a valid candidate for a featured photo? --Mikehadd12 (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Mikehadd12, not trying to discourage you, however this not sharp enough, it's very haze, and the obelisk is tilted. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 05:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Eristalinus megacephalusEdit

Hi Guys,

Thanks in advance, it would be great if anyone could find time to give a review of this picture of Eristalinus megacephalus, is it good to put this as an FP candidate Deepugn (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the depth of field of the picture do not cover all the main subject. It's normal in macro photography, however it's important, especially in a case of educational oriented pictures, our case here. Also, have some chromatic aberration, that could be fixed in post... and weird choice of proportion, it's almost a square, you could there. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 17:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Deepugn (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


Really appreciate a feedback on this, thanks Deepugn (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Bubulcus ibis (Cattle Egret)Edit

Hi everyone. I was looking for some feedback on this image. It just passed QI and was considering if it had a shot at perhaps FP? Either way any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks! Mifter (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi Mifter, I like it in general, but I'm not sure whether I'd give it a pro at FPC. First, the white areas at the top are about as bright as the bird, and as the eye is typically drawn to the brightest point in an image, they they steal away some of the viewer's attention. Second, there is more empty space to the left of the head than to the right, but normally you'd want more space in front of the subjects face than behind it (en:Lead room). I've made an approximate crop suggestion in an image note (feel free to remove it!) that could help to mitigate these two points – unfortunately, you'd lose the purple flowers on the left. If the image is already cropped and you've got some additional space on the right, you could add that and go with a wider crop of course. Finally, you may not have noticed that there is a relatively new rule at Commons FP, that disqualifies images that are licensed GFDL only or GFDL + CC-BY-SA-ND, so I fear that with your current license selection it will be rejected. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)



Using a very wide angle 15mm lens (on full frame) with a close-focus adapter, I captured this in October 2015 with the flower merely a few centimetres away from the lens. What do people think about it? Is the extreme field curvature causing the petals to be blurry a fatal flaw? Is the second flower on the bottom of the picture ruining the symmetry of the composition? dllu (t,c) 22:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)