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.


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)

Albert Bergonzo wow, few mounts and no answer, sorry for that. Did you solve the issue?
Well, this could be happening for many reasons. One advice is to remove the highlights at LR, and them use PS for more sophisticate work.
LR really reads raw files, PS transform they in a tiff file before edit it. Even in camera raw.
Are you using sRGB as a work space? Or Adobe RGB?
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton for your reply. I generally use sRGB as a work space. The workaround I found for the moment is to use DxOopticsPro, which I find less intimidating. --Albert Bergonzo (talk) 19:03, 21 October 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)
Cvmontuy I can see several improvements.
Lets start for the moment that you took the photo, the light was very harsh in moment of the picture, so the shadows are very edge. This could be better.
White balance, pay attention on white walls, they are not white, they are something close to red. You could balance that.
The image is one to 0,5 stop darker that I see as good, however you need to manage the highlights, as already mentioned. Your camera could recovery a giant amount of details in the dark areas.
Why 1/1000s and ISO 500? That choice made the picture very noisy.
I don't know if they are out of focus, or not sharp, but f/10, if you focus in the middle of this image, not in the infinity, you could maybe have everything in focus. To guarantee focus and sharpness focus stacking could work.
I made a quick manipulation, see things that I told you: [1]
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 19:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Ikan and Rodrigo, very usefull comments, regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvmontuy (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Moon over the skylineEdit

Moon over San Francisco
  •   Info I was walking from Chinatown to the Golden Gate Bridge when I saw the moon shining brightly behind me so I took this quick snapshot. It's stitched from four frames. I like the balance of colours between the cold, silvery glow of the moon and the warmth of the city as well as the last remnants of sunlight, but I'm still not sure if this photo "works". dllu (t,c) 18:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • For me yest, "it works", it is spectacular. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Library on a planeEdit


Thank you in advance for any feedback you can provide Regards --Cvmontuy (talk) 05:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  • @Cvmontuy: Well I prefer the version with the cables. It seems a good image, if you clone out something I think it should be the dustspot in the middle of the sky. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, is there a procedure on commons to revert an image to the previous one?, regards --Cvmontuy (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • In the file page, you go to the section "File history", and then you click on "revert" for the version you want restored. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2016 (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

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)