Commons:Photography critiques/March 2022

Would any of my photos meet QI?

Could somebody asssess my photos to see if any of them meet QI standards?Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 13:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright thanks Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 17:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Really appreciate it, you guys Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 14:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, your feedback has been incredibly helpful Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 16:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Initial assessment of my work

I'm relatively new on Commons, but of the images of mine that I've uploaded here so far, I feel these are my best:

• 
• 
• 
• 

How would these fare based on Commons' quality images guidelines? Any other critique is also welcome.
(If you're so inclined you can also see my photography gallery, which is a subset of the images I've both taken and uploaded here) aismallard (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

aismallard quality looks technically good, I'd go over to COM:QIC and find out! I like the angles but not sure everyone would. Buidhe (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess it's worth a shot. Thank you! aismallard (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Aismallard: The Christmas tree might pass QI (it's a little underexposed, but that can be fixed and it might be minor enough that the reviewer doesn't care). For the others you're going to get pushback. Similar to what I wrote below, the technical standard for architectural photography is pretty high. There is a very strong preference at QIC for vertical lines to be vertical and/or horizontal lines to be horizontal, for example, and anything that deviates from that standard has to justify "what is gained from doing it this way?" So there's room for abstract/unconventional shots when they make for a particularly interesting motif, but for a straight up view of a courthouse, its columns would need to be vertical without distorting the rest of the frame, and people will want to know what was added by taking a photo of the many-windowed building off-center. Not saying it definitely wouldn't pass -- just what I'd expect a typical reviewer to say. Also as I wrote below, you may be interested to check out Wikimedia NYC. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Critique requested

I'm intending to take some more photographs this month so I wanted to get some initial feedback on my first uploads.

• 
• 

In particular I'm wondering whether the bridge photograph would meet the quality image guidelines. I'd welcome any feedback. Ruбlov (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really an expert, but these look nice although perhaps a bit underexposed. I'd try nominating at COM:QIC. The worst that can happen is they are rejected :) Buidhe (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed it's best to start with COM:QIC, which is good for identifying technical issues (and, where possible, correcting them). The light on the hospital isn't very appealing. The light on the bridge is better (and the sky is nice), but I wonder if the light was just kind of flat or if the contrast might've been compressed in post-processing. The biggest challenge for FPC will be issues when viewed at full size (and people will view at full size): missing detail and the presence of some artifacts and noise. You may want to go through your camera's settings to make sure you're shooting in the highest available quality, in RAW if possible, and using the minimum compression when saving as a JPG after post-processing. I'm not sure how much of it is a limitation of the gear vs. settings/processing/technique, though. Perhaps W.carter might have insight, as someone who has used this camera line? It can help to peruse the FP categories to get a sense of what's been promoted. Look at the examples at full size. e.g. Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United_States and Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#United_States_of_America. As an aside, in case you're local to NYC and haven't come across this yet, there's an organization that runs regular Wikimedia events you may want to check out: Wikimedia NYC. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the feedback. I will see what happens at QIC. These are the un-edited JPEGs created by my camera but I do also still have the RAW files. If contrast or exposure concerns are brought up at QIC then I can take a stab at editing them, though I don't know much about that. Ruбlov (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ruбlov, as Rhododendrites points out, the photos are underexposed. This is something the Panasonic software will unfortunately do when you shoot things on a very sunny day. It overcompensates for the bright areas in the picture and everything ends up dark. It will also desaturate the scene quite a bit. You need to bring up exposure, light, saturation and contrast in post-processing. Take a look at what I did with your photos in my Dropbox: link. I think you see what I mean.

Unfortunately, it will be very, very difficult for you to get single photos of such large structures up to FP-standard. The problem is the small sensor in your camera. At only 6.17 x 4.55 mm, it is one of the smallest sensors used in cameras these days. It is simply not big enough to get the details and color nuances needed for FPs of landscapes or large structures. I have a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 with a larger sensor, 13.2 × 8.8 mm, which is four times the size of yours, and I'm really struggling with such photos. To get something that might pass FPC, I have to build an image using panorama technique and merge and downsize many photos. This image of a hill about the size of your bridge and hospital, is an FP, but i had to compose it of 22 photos to get it up to standard and people still complained that it wasn't sharp enough everywhere. The standards at FP is set by cameras, with larger sensors than ours, that usually cost ten times the price of ours.

If you want to try FP, I suggest you do so with photos of smaller things taken at a distance of about 2-3 meters. Some examples: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects. For landscapes and buildings, you can instead focus on getting good photos for Wikipedia articles, especially of places and things that have no pictures: Requested pictures. All the best, --Cart (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, this is very helpful and I appreciate that you took the time to edit the photos yourself. I will see if I can replicate your edits on the original raw files. I'm not terribly bothered if my camera isn't good enough for FPC (or even QIC), happy just to take passably good photos that are needed on Wikipedia. Ruбlov (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)