Commons:Photography critiques/September 2008
 | 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. |
Autumn pictures
I would like to hear some thoughts about these pictures; what's good, what could be improved, and so on. Thank you! -- Helleborus (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment Hi, these are really awasome pictures, specially the number 2. Keep on capturing beautiful pictures like these.
Only a general review
I only would like to know what do you think about these photos, only a general review and a list of weak points. Thanks very much, --sNappy 19:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- The 3rd photo (wine) is better than two others. I like color. But it is possible that too much objects at this photo. --AKA MBG (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Close-up shots
I just got a new camera (Canon S5) and have been playing around with it. I've never done any serious photography work before and am trying various things with this camera to see what looks good and what doesn't. Any suggestions with these pictures? The only post processing done was in GIMP to adjust the color level/curve.--Prabbit237 (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - These kind of shots, at close distance, are probably too much for your kind of camera. To be sure, you'll have first to adjust it to the maximum available quality (to which corresponds the maximum file size), otherwise your pictures will be spoiled by the compression artifacts. Also, try always to work with the minimum available ISO setting (usually 100), to avoid noise (your pictures are really noisy, look at the backgrounds). Finally, you should have control over the depth-of-field, by chosing yourself the aperture (F number). With close range photographs, that is critical. Please let me know if the explanation was too technical. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- PS - take a look here, many of those were shot with a bridge-type camera. Please open the files and notice the exposure solutions (f number, shutter speed, ISO) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanx for the comments. The camera can go down to an ISO of 80 and F2.8 (I think both of those were 200 and F3.5.) I'm still learning how to work it, etc. (I got it the day before taking those pics and have only had el-cheapo point-and-shoot cameras before now. This one's still considered a point-and-shoot (it's not an SLR) but it's a higher-end one. Also the resolution can go to 8 megs but I had it bumped down on those (not sure if I still have the RAW files or not.) And no, the explanation wasn't too technical. I know what the various terms mean, etc. I just need to learn how to apply them<g> --Prabbit237 (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- PS - take a look here, many of those were shot with a bridge-type camera. Please open the files and notice the exposure solutions (f number, shutter speed, ISO) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment A bit of extra noise but I like them, specially the butterfly one.