Commons:Photography critiques/April 2012
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
March 2012
Passau
This is the first time I use this page, and I apologize if I am misunderstanding its intention or if my English is too bad.
The altitude difference between the two fortresses and the sloping walls between them suggested to me a kind of stitched panoramic picture with a non-rectangular outline. Somehow it seems to make sense but then I realize that it might create the impression that there is "something wrong". Of course I could have zoomed out and filled the whole rectangular area but then the lower left part would be filled with details of Passau which would take the focus off the fortresses.
I would appreciate any comment. -- Aisano (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Don't know, the non-rectangular outline is somewhat unexpected - I don't know how the image would look with the other details of Passau you mentioned above. Did you adjust the tone curve? The image seems to be lacking contrast, it could also be a bit over-exposed (e.g. the area with the white tower). I might be mistaken but the picture looks also quite strongly de-noised. --S nova (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. I did not apply any de-noising; I started with the left-most picture (of the fortress) and had to make slight adjustments to brightness of the others (no camera panorama mode). Maybe that caused the overexposition. I just now compared and found that the original picture of the right part really shows more details in the white parts of the panorama. Maybe it would be preferrable to start stitching from the darker side.
- It is also a good hint that the image has weak contrast; perhaps the weather (haze) was not good enough for the distance (1000+ metres). GIMP's "automatic" colour correction shows some headroom; should I apply it and re-upload the image?
- Since you did not comment on the stitching I assume it was not that bad … or maybe the other problems outweighed it.
- I shall try to consider your hints in future pictures. Much obliged! Vielen Dank! -- Aisano (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- My experience is that Gimp automatic white balance correction results in overexposed images. I get much better images with manual correction and some experimentation. Yann (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- One more thought: Did you try to play around with the tone curve feature of the GIMP (I guess you're using the German version, so go to "Tools"/"Werkzeuge", then "Color Tools"/"Farben", then "Curves"/"Kurven" - Excuse my "lecturing", I guess you tried this)? I had a go with the downloaded version of your image - The curve tool can improve the contrast quite a bit, but the over-exposed parts are lost. Yann's tip might give you the right clue to address this issue. If you put some more work into this, I'd also try to use the full picture, not just the "diagonal" version. --S nova (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you again, and I shall give it a try on some rainy day. (I use GIMP under Linux in Esperanto, though I am German, but I know which tools you mean.) Just a remark: There is no "full picture", I just took four shots from the upper left to the lower right and stitched them. Of course I could have taken eight to create a rectangular picture. -- Aisano (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- I shall try to consider your hints in future pictures. Much obliged! Vielen Dank! -- Aisano (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Queen's Window
I think that I have taken care of all the stiching errors, but would appreciate another set of eyes, as well as any other feedback. Thanks --Igoldste (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Why don't you nominate for QI? -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --Igoldste (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Nantes (France), docks at sunset
My first contribution. Stitched with Hugin. If someone have anay advise or comment? --DakoR (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Looks very nice already! Would it perhaps be possible to get your horizon straighter? Also, you might want to make sure your picture has no overexposed areas. The same goes for the very dark bits. DimiTalen (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Johilla waterfall
My first attempt at a panorama. I don't know why Hugin creates a blurred area in the middle. Comments? Suggestions? Yann (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Nice view, worth some effort.
- There are three apparent issues. First your blurred area in the middle, this is probably down to a blurred original image. Second you see that somewhere center left of the cascade the images are strongly misaligned. Please check your aligment (press F3 for a window), also make sure that as the last alignment option you use at least p,y,r,b. Third, the left border of your blurred area, it very much looks like misalignment due to parallax error. How much did you more your camera in between photos. Millimetres, one centimetre, or more? Good luck with the debugging. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Junonia almana (Peacock Pansy)
Would it be relevant to nominate these images as a set to VI (explaing the difference between wet and dry season forms)? If then, please explain. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- It is interesting, I believe it would have a high educational value to the set to clearly explain that.
Done Thanks. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Stations of the cross
Hello, Would it be relevant to nominate any of these images to QI? If not, what would be to improve ? Thanks. --Pethrus (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Good quality! But the size is too small for QI (the requirement is 2 MB or more). — Yerpo Eh? 14:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- No Yerpo, this is just wrong! The size requirement is 2 Megapixels (MP), not Megabyte (MB)! That's a difference! --mathias K 16:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- You're right, I'm sorry. In this case, I think all of those could be QI (at least judging by technical merit), however, better description would be nice for them to be more useful in encyclopedic sense. Plus, perhaps a link to a wider shot of each station. — Yerpo Eh? 17:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you. I have added a better description and a link to wider shots. --Pethrus (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- You're right, I'm sorry. In this case, I think all of those could be QI (at least judging by technical merit), however, better description would be nice for them to be more useful in encyclopedic sense. Plus, perhaps a link to a wider shot of each station. — Yerpo Eh? 17:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)