Commons:Photography critiques

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut
 SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days.

color palette logo Welcome to the Photography critiques!

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

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 Challenges? 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!


Update this page


Start a new topic

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.


Archive


Are my photos good enough?[edit]

Hi, I have a lot of photos that I upload to Commons, I always upload my best. Are they good enough to be: Quality, Valued or Featured?

Should I propose them to those categories?

All my photos (some of them are uploaded from flicker by other users) are in Category:Jakub T. Jankiewicz.

Those are my recently uploaded images:

  • Jan Matejko selective focus statue.jpg
  • Galeria Korona.jpg
  • Domek Tkaczki wide.jpg

Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jakub T. Jankiewicz Valued images aren't about absolute quality but only relative quality. So your images will be approved as valued if they are the best depiction of the subject currently available on Commons. I think some of these have potential as quality images as well, but I don't usually judge there. Buidhe (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add my photos in categories Category:Mass grave in Bór, Category:Mass grave in Brzask, Category:Korona Kielce (shopping mall), Category:Domek Tkaczki, Category:Reenactment in Malbork are better than the others or the only images in the category. Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcubic: My point of view:

  • Not very sharp, DoF is very shallow so most of the photo is blurry, I'd do it with higher F so it's nicely sharp, I don't see the reason for shallow DoF

  • Strong vignetting effect has been applied which makes the photo looks unnatural to me. Nice composition though - I'd straighten the verticals and perhaps come just before sunrise to get some nice colors there. I see FP potential of the object if you work on the composition and take the picture under better light conditions

  • Interesting but distorted and the main object is in the shade. But again, nice composition

Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Podzemnik: those were just my last uploads, there are better photos I've taken (and uploaded to Commons), like those in categories I've linked. Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcubic: You can't expect other users to browse all your uploads. I'd recommend to chose a few photos that you think represent your work the best and ask others for a review here. Kind regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Podzemnik:

I can pick those:

  • This image won 4th place in Polish photo contest

  • Image of the frontman of the Polish folk band Percival, 3 of my other photos of the band are at Wikipedia, I think that my photos are best in the category Category:Percival (band)

  • Książ Castle in Wałbrzych, Poland

I have also a lot of photos from Reenactments in Wolin (I was 3 times there are 3 categories) and Malbork it's hard to pick the best. Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcubic:

  • Underexposed to me, the graveyard is not fully sharp, vignetting has been applied (?), black is likely clipping

  • Nice QI. Sharp but the focus is not on the eyes and the main thing I see here is that the instrument is cropped. I'd also crop it a wee bit from the top and get rid of the distracting brown bench side on the left bottom. Maybe VI

  • Underexposed, possibly overprocessed (or maybe you used a polarised filter? The sky look tweaked). The top crop is quite tight, the verticals are not straight (though perhaps acceptable as you were very close to the building), there are some people in it, the light is not very good as there is a big shadow on the building

Please take my reviews easy, I was mostly reviewing the photos for FP :) Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:CN Tower from AGO (daytime).jpg - QI[edit]

Toronto's CN Tower, viewed from the Art Gallery of Ontario on a sunny day

Hey, I was hoping to get some opinions on this image as a possible QI candidate, as well as any suggestions for improvements. Thanks in advance! —oscitare (he/him, il/lui; talk) 06:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi Oscitare, I believe this can be a successful QI candidate. But I would first try to improve composition, by removing those uninteresting trees in the foreground, and sharpen the image, which is a bit soft. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phone cameras are limited by their very tiny lens, regardless of their megapixel figure. It’s just technically impossible to get optical resolution on micrometer level with a small aperture of 1-2 millimetres compared to an SLR lens and sensor of much larger size. You can clearly see that in the tree foliage looking rather like a watercolour painting than a photograph, the single leaves having melted into larger areas of unique colour. The devices try to make up for this by severe digital processing, sharpening edges, brightening up shadows and reducing noise, killing even more detail. It’s a pity here because the scene is really fine, and the photographer has a good sense of composition. This image definitely deserves a better equipment. I would have taken it in landscape orientation to get more of the skyline instead of the foreground trees. --Kreuzschnabel 10:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:PHC Ichgam January in 2021.jpg[edit]

PHC Ichgam January in 2021.jpg

Requesting feedback about nominating this image for the QI. Hulged (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry Hulged, but technical quality is very poor. Image is overall unsharp, noisy and full of compression artefacts, owing (probably) to the poor quality of the camera. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alvesgaspar, I understand. Thanks for your feedback :) Hulged (talk) 10:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hulged: It's very difficult to get a QI out of a smartphone. Their megapixel count keeps increasing but they're limited by a tiny lens. That said, this is pretty good for a smartphone picture. The light is nice, and it's not all that undetailed. IMO it's on the edge of QI and will probably depend on who reviews it. As Alvesgaspar is aware, there is some variability in the standards reviewers hold QIs to. :) Certainly getting a dedicated camera will help, though. — Rhododendrites talk |  12:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I'm so sorry, I was looking at the thumbnail to the right! Yes, File:PHC Ichgam January in 2021.jpg does have some problems that would prevent it from being QI, I'm afraid. Sorry for the confusion. To make this comment a bit more constructive: the light there is definitely nice -- good eye to see that -- and I'd try to get directly in front of the house, and maybe lift the camera up as much as possible to get over the fence (or even through the fence! that's the most distracting part for me). But one part of what I said remains: having a separate camera will make a big difference. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something strange happening here, making the image sharp and blurry in turns. See annotations. Has it been taken through a window pane? Usually, there should be nothing but air between your camera lens and the object :) --Kreuzschnabel 10:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Quality is very poor though, even in the sharp areas. Smartphones just aren’t really good cameras, see what I stated above. Get a small point-and-shoot-camera of reasonable quality, you won’t regret it. --Kreuzschnabel 10:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating! Somehow that does not really look like and optical phenomenon to me. I'd suspect that something happened in the processing stage. The metadata contains an undefined 0x8889 EXIF tag that contains "portrait". If this was shot in "portrait mode" (or however Xiaomi calls that), that might well be the software trying to blur the background in order to produce some "fake-bokeh" around the person in the center – and failing miserably, because there is no person in the center. So tip for the future @Hulged: maybe try to avoid portrait mode and see if that helps. --El Grafo (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you, El Grafo, Kreuzschnabel and Rhododendrites. Will consider getting a camera then. --Hulged (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Photography_critiques&oldid=625550544"