Commons:Photography critiques/February 2017

Washington Monument

I took this photo earlier this year and was wondering if it is a valid candidate for a featured photo? --Mikehadd12 (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Mikehadd12, not trying to discourage you, however this not sharp enough, it's very haze, and the obelisk is tilted. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 05:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Eristalinus megacephalus

Eristalinus megacephalus, from Kerala, India

Hi Guys,

Thanks in advance, it would be great if anyone could find time to give a review of this picture of Eristalinus megacephalus, is it good to put this as an FP candidate Deepugn (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the depth of field of the picture do not cover all the main subject. It's normal in macro photography, however it's important, especially in a case of educational oriented pictures, our case here. Also, have some chromatic aberration, that could be fixed in post... and weird choice of proportion, it's almost a square, you could there. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 17:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Deepugn (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Mimosa pudica flower

Mimosa pudica flower from Kerala, India

Will this qualify for FP, thanks Deepugn (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Sorry, it is not very sharp and it has too much image noise for FP. What kind of lens was used? For this type of photo, I would recommend moving close and using a high quality 90mm macro lens rather than stand far away with a 420mm lens. dllu (t,c) 23:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Bubulcus ibis (Cattle Egret)

Hi everyone. I was looking for some feedback on this image. It just passed QI and was considering if it had a shot at perhaps FP? Either way any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks! Mifter (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Mifter, I like it in general, but I'm not sure whether I'd give it a pro at FPC. First, the white areas at the top are about as bright as the bird, and as the eye is typically drawn to the brightest point in an image, they they steal away some of the viewer's attention. Second, there is more empty space to the left of the head than to the right, but normally you'd want more space in front of the subjects face than behind it (en:Lead room). I've made an approximate crop suggestion in an image note (feel free to remove it!) that could help to mitigate these two points – unfortunately, you'd lose the purple flowers on the left. If the image is already cropped and you've got some additional space on the right, you could add that and go with a wider crop of course. Finally, you may not have noticed that there is a relatively new rule at Commons FP, that disqualifies images that are licensed GFDL only or GFDL + CC-BY-SA-ND, so I fear that with your current license selection it will be rejected. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hi El Grafo, thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it. The image as you see it is slightly cropped in (the original is 12.1 megapixels vs 10.5 for the crop as I was trying to go for a golden spiral crop on the birds head.). Going back to the original, I made two crops - here and here to try and gain some lead room while keeping some of the purple flowers, let me know what you think if you have a moment. Regarding the new(ish) FP license restriction, thank you for informing me. It is disappointing to hear about as I'm generally willing to consider re-licensing images if asked but find a categorical exclusion rather heavy handed. Thanks again for your input. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Mifter, difficult choice. I like the purple flowers, but I think crop 2 works better, so I'd go for that one. --El Grafo (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Damselfly

Odonata reproducing, from Kerala, India

Really appreciate a feedback on this, thanks Deepugn (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Deepugn, same problem as the previous one. Weird framing, and proportion of the frame. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 21:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Really good moment captured, but the depth of field is too shallow, as the photo is not sharp enough for FP or QI, in my opinion. I don't find the shape of the picture frame strange, for whatever that's worth, but I think that whereas I don't really care about that in most cases, many others on this site do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Chrysanthemum

Chrysanthemum

Using a very wide angle 15mm lens (on full frame) with a close-focus adapter, I captured this in October 2015 with the flower merely a few centimetres away from the lens. What do people think about it? Is the extreme field curvature causing the petals to be blurry a fatal flaw? Is the second flower on the bottom of the picture ruining the symmetry of the composition? dllu (t,c) 22:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dllu: Wide-angle macro, that's certainly something we don't see all that often. Reminds me a bit of the sample images I've seen from the Laowa 15mm f/4 1:1 macro lens. You get a lot of the environment in a macro shot with this, which can work out very nicely (and I think in general it does here). Personally, I don't mind the softness too much aesthetically (and the more I look at it … I think I actually like it), but it's difficult to predict what people over at FPC would say, for example. I'm not sure about the second flower on the bottom. It is darker than the main flower, so you've still got a bit of separation between them. But the other one at the ca. 10:30 o'clock position is quite disturbing for me. --El Grafo (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)