Commons:Photography critiques/March 2017

Possible FP or not?

I hope it's not too strange for me to ask a question about someone else's picture. I think this photo of a barbary macaque is so funny, with the monkey's mischievous expression while he probably breaks a car's antenna. I would nominate it to FPC just because it's well-composed and funny. However, one could criticize the sharpness of the monkey, the glariness of the sky, and maybe even consider the anti-avalanche mesh a distracting background. My rejoinder would be that the monkey is sharp enough, especially since you miss the point of a humorous photo by pixel-peeping, and there are days that look exactly as depicted. So what do you think? Is this worth an FPC nomination, or would it get picked apart on technical grounds? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Though it is an amusing photo, it just seems like a snapshot to me. You are right that the technical quality is poor (and I don't think the monkey is sharp enough). If it were a photo of a rare or extinct animal, the lack of sharpness could be excused. But these friendly monkeys come and play with man-made objects all the time and almost always have such a mischievous expression. They are a popular tourist attraction and hundreds of photos of them must be getting taken every day at least, so I don't think this moment in particular is special enough to warrant an FP. dllu (t,c) 01:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot. That makes sense. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Photograph of church

Looking for a second opinion: Is this photo Quality-image worthy? Thanks! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Right now, this wouldn't pass QIC. You need to do some kind of perspective correction, because I feel pretty safe in assuming that the church doesn't actually look the way you're depicting it. The left crop could be more spacious, too, but if that's all you've got, make the perspective correction and try a QIC nomination. I can't be sure one way or the other on passing even with perspective correction, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with the criteria for Quality Images, but for me, the biggest issue is the overexposure in the white, sunlit surfaces of the church and the building in the background. These also come with significant chromatic aberrations and purple fringing. I don't know if it's the sensor or the JPEG compression, but the whole image has a mottled feel to it at when viewed at 100%. These issues will be hard to overcome without equipment with manual exposure control, a bigger and better sensor, better glass and the possibility to use polarizing filters. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

All right, thank you both. I think those corrections are pretty far over my head, so I will just take your verdict of "not QIC-quality". :) Thanks again for your help! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Flowers and the Alcatraz Water Tower.jpg

Flowers with the Alcatraz Water Tower in the background

I captured this picture on Alcatraz Island, a fascinating island with a rich history. I wanted to juxtapose the vibrant flowers with the Alcatraz water tower, an austere symbol of the most notorious prison of the United States. I was a bit disappointed that it is declined at QIC (insufficient depth of field) but I was wondering what I should do to improve this, or if the idea works at all. Is the tower simply too ugly? Should I have stopped down to f/16 or something (the photo was taken at f/8)? dllu (t,c) 05:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

dllu, if you choose to do it again focus stacking is a better option, because if you close more the sharpness will drop, every less have a sweet spot, closing more than the necessary the diffraction will interfere in the image quality.

It also is too dark, you could bring more from shadows.

about the subject, I can't see a real contrast and a good history there, a barbed wire, something more violent would create this contrast the water tower.. not so much. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 09:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Shinko cultivar photos

I have 12 photos of this here: User:PumpkinSky/Uploads/2017 in the Shinko section. Some aren't worthy of VI or QI nomination. But I think some are worhty of VI or maybe even QI nomination, but I'm not sure which one is best. Any advice appreciated. PumpkinSky talk 18:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @PumpkinSky: I'd say the first 5 taken with the mobile phone would probably be rejected at QI (but not necessarily at VI), as they show some strange artefacts when viewed at 100% magnification. Looking at the remaining ones, some are over-all unsharp (e.g. File:Pyrus pyrifolia (Shinko) inflorescence4.JPG), require more depth of field (e.g. File:Pyrus pyrifolia (Shinko) inflorescence-fruit buds.JPG) or are not focused on the main subject (e.g. File:Pyrus_pyrifolia_(Shinko)_inflorescence3.JPG). But File:Pyrus pyrifolia (Shinko) inflorescence2.JPG is pretty good imho, as most of the front flower is in focus. I don't know how good your chances are at QI, but I think this one might be worth a try. For VI I would probably go for File:Pyrus pyrifolia (Shinko) inflorescence 3.jpg, as it shows the pink/purple parts of the flower nicely (unless it's not typical for the species/cultivar to have so many of them).

Looking at your settings with the DSLR: As a general rule of thumb, for close-ups like this you usually want to stop down your aperture to at least F8, possibly more, as 1) this brings you more depth of field (= more of the subject will be sharp) and 2) over-all lens performance usually increases if stopped down an f-stop or two, so something around F8-F11 may well be close to the sharpness sweet-spot of your lenses (that's something you have to try out yourself; you can try to stop down even further, but at some point diffraction will become an issue, compare sample images at de:Beugungsunschärfe#Bildbeispiele). Hope that helps a bit, --El Grafo (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@El Grafo: Thank you so much!! This is the exact sort of detailed feedback I was looking for. I have another lens arriving tomorrow and will test that one out. Thanks again. @Ikan Kekek: Pinging you just as FYI. Thank you both, you've both been very kind. PumpkinSky talk 18:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@El Grafo: After reading your comments and looking over the photos, I understand much better what to do and look for. I agree, File:Pyrus pyrifolia (Shinko) inflorescence2.JPG is the best and I'm now going to put it up for VI. PumpkinSky talk 21:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@El Grafo: and @Ikan Kekek: Peulle promoted it to QI !!! Thanks guys! I'm also copying this thread to my Shinko section I linked to above to use as a reference tool. PumpkinSky talk 21:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)