Commons:Photography critiques/March 2018

Image keeps getting questioned

Hello community,

If anyone has any questions regarding my image I've uploaded recently. Feel free to search for Madness: Their Nightmare, My Reality. I own all copyrights to this project.

Kind Regards,

--J L T (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Flagging this section for archiving since the file is not a photograph. Thuresson (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Thuresson (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality image

 
Mahmoud Hosseini Zad

Is it good enough to be nominated for Quality images? or could it be with some help from Photography workshop ? SlowManifesto (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi SlowManifesto,

The image seems to suffer from some noticeable motion blur. This would probably prevent it from being promoted to QI, and unfortunately, it's not typically something that can be repaired with post-processing. It might fare better at VI, which has more forgiving requirements for technical quality. Feel free to ask if you have any further questions! –Juliancolton | Talk 01:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. SlowManifesto (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@SlowManifesto: That's a very nice portrait imho, but you might want to fix the date (pretty sure this wasn't taken on Jan 1st 2000, 00:42:42 ;-)). I agree that it's probably a bit too soft for QI standards, but I don't think that's due to motion blur (no double lines visible). I'd rather suspect the lens: with a consumer-grade telephoto zoom like this shot wide open, you can expect to see some softness when pixel-peeping. Doesn't really matter at normal magnifications, though. --El Grafo (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Quite a good portrait, even at ISO 2000. Yann (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)