Commons:Photography critiques/May 2011
 | 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. |
April
Scanned images
I have a collection of colour films to scan on Nikon Coolscan V (4000 dpi), and I would like to know about the ways to make those photos any better. Maybe you propose some links (articles), or advice me to do something special. Here comes the sample:
Is there any sense in producing such images? Thanks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I think such photos are worth having here in Commons. The photo shows the castle at an earlier time than most of the other photos, and the view point is nice as well. For you to see how much effort the scanning takes. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- What kind of film is this? Because on the scan there are several blown-out highlights, and if your film has detail in those areas we would like to see it (highlight recovery is easier with negative than slide film). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Colour positive film, possibly Hungarian or from East Germany. I will check if it's possible to get the blown-out areas, but I think it's only the sky with no details and constant colouring...--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- What kind of film is this? Because on the scan there are several blown-out highlights, and if your film has detail in those areas we would like to see it (highlight recovery is easier with negative than slide film). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Microphone
Hello, I found this picture and I would like to know, if could be QI or even FP. Thanks.--Slfi (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- A very good phtot, for sure a QI and most likely a VI. About FP I am not sure, maybe not enough "wow". --AngMoKio (座谈) 20:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- For utilitarian objects, it is difficult to have the "wow" of a structure or nature scene on a spectacular day. For me, an FP of a mundane object needs to be sharp, clean, and well-composed at a higher threshold than required for QI, and I think this image meets it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Bridge
Hello, I think less sky would be better. How much should I crop? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Cropping sky means that the picture is getting more like a tube and that does not improve the picture in my eyes. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I have done a slight crop (and small brighness adjustment), the image now looks less bottom-heavy to me. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Lorry
- Hello, I would like to know, if this image could be QI, thanks. (I know that resolution is too small)--Slfi (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Resolution isn't that bad, but the background is distracting (particularly the bus) and large parts of the photo are overexposed. I'd say that it probably wouldn't pass the QI review. — Yerpo Eh? 13:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for opinion, I will aware for next time.
- Resolution isn't that bad, but the background is distracting (particularly the bus) and large parts of the photo are overexposed. I'd say that it probably wouldn't pass the QI review. — Yerpo Eh? 13:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)