Commons:Photography critiques/May 2008

Three orange lilies

• Request constructive comments about the quality of these and ways to improve them. Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I like the first one. The image quality is kind of low due to the camera and it might of helped to take the picture at a different angle to get rid of the grass and piece of wood. The depth of field and sharpness is good in the first one. In the second picture, the lighting is harsh and the depth of field and sharpness is not as good as the first. Try taking it at a different time of day. Both photos like like there is a lot of compression, which is probably due to the camera. --Digon3 ^talk 18:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks, because of where these were in relation to the house and sun, I can only take this in the afternoon as most of the day they're covered by shadows. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A mountain of resistors

• Hi, I did some macro photos of this subject, a heap of resistors. I'd like to have some opinions about how I could improve this kind of photo, about light, colors... and your general opinion about good and weak points. Thanks --sNappy 14:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• • There is a lot of noise in the photo. It would help to have a larger DOF and not as bright of a background. I think it would help if you took the picture at more of an angle (more looking down than sideways). Did you edit this photo at all? --Digon3 ^talk 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• First of all, thanks for the answer. Well, the narrow DOF was a reserched effect, but probably it doesn't fit very well to this kind of photo; instead the white background was only the best idea I had at that moment, even if I wasn't satisfacted then as I'm not now: but, what kind of background could I choose? I really don't know, if you can give me some suggestion I'll be pleased. However I chose this kind of angle to make it like a mountain, but the white background is not suitable, and, you are right, it is whatever too extended. About the noise, it was probably caused by the editing I made, even if it was quite light: I just refined colours and exposition. How can I reduce the noise at the photo taking? Thanks--sNappy 13:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A picture with a porpoise

Hi, there. I got this lucky shot off in Vegas last year, with the lighting and everything just right on this little guy. The only errors, then, are human in nature... Just wanted to see if/how much the low DoF and resulting 'flatness' is a turn-off. I'm also aware that I lost the tail, and I'd be interested to know if/how much that screws the pooch, too. Again, it's good light and a great pose, so tips on how to make the best of these rare, 'photogenic' situations are appreciated! RevolverOcelot 02:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

St. Augustine photos, for starts

I've uploaded rather a lot of photos here over the last year and a half or so, and thought perhaps some might be eligible for quality image status. Recently took a bunch in St. Augustine, so that might be the best place to start? They are in this gallery. I think some of the Nombre de Dios Cross photos are really good, but it's hard for me to judge my own stuff objectively. Washout is a problem in my photos, I know, but that's the peril of photography in sunny Florida. Any helpful advice or opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! :) --Ebyabe 23:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Bunch of pictures

Good day. I am an amateur photographer who learned everything about photography by myself and from reading here and there. I don't have a lot of technical knowledge, or a professional camera (5 years old Sony DSC-V1) and I have minimal clues of the possibility of Photoshop. Regardless, I like to take pictures that look good, without thinking about the small details that are discussed on featured pictures candidates page. I am also a fan of Hugin.

I uploaded a bunch of pictures recently from trips I did, and I would like some feedback about how to improve them, individually, or collectively. If you feel an image sould be nominated quality or featured image, feel free to do so or to mention it to me, thank you. Martin St-Amant 18:41, 15 May 2008

Hello Martin, you certainly have been bold in uploading so many photos for comment. And you seem to like panoramas, so do I, and I also appreciate the results possible with hugin. A few comments interspersed below, hope they help you to improve in future. -- Klaus with K 16:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sky somewhat on the thin side. I am even more curious how the image would continue at the bottom.--Klaus with K 16:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sky overexposed.--Klaus with K 16:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Would love to have the falls at the right with sky above.--Klaus with K 16:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sky should be continuous.--Klaus with K 16:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sky overexposed.--Klaus with K 16:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Water pretty overexposed.--Klaus with K 16:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sky overexposed, and 10 percent more sky would better balance the composition.--Klaus with K 16:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Arc du Triomphe

• I'd like a general review of this picture: find out if it is a worthwile Quality Image nomination. All comments appreciated. Jordan Busson 14:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Arc du Triomphe is unsharp. It seems that the Autofocus centered on the yellow sign on the right site (which is sharp). Did you use a tripod? Also the image is quite tilted, mainly because of the perspective, but still it looks as if the camera was held a little bit aslope. And the tree in front is also a little bit disturbing the composition. There are a few images of the arc at night and several of them look a lot better (especially Image:Arc Triomphe.jpg, but also Image:Paris arc de Triomphe place de l'Etoile la nuit.JPG, where because of the composition the tilt fits). I'm not sure if you will have success with this image at QI, but I would probably decline it. -- Cecil 19:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Coriander blossoms

• I'd just like general feedback on this set of images and if any are QI material. They were taken moments apart. The third image is darker because some clouds rolled in and hid the sun. Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In the first, all of the three images were not good sharpness, so these has serious C/A problem. It would be focused on the petals alone, could be better. The second, the left and middle images is a bit yellowish and the right image is blueish, though both of the color are tasteful for me. But as for QI, if they has neutral color, would be more better. The third, the left and middle images are cut off the flower at the bottom, it's dissapointed X(. Because it may be driven a person into distraction. You should tried to devise composition freely. Lastly, these flowers are very lovely, and they has very beautiful contrast that subjects-background and white-green. Please do be more good quality :). -Fukutaro 03:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The thing I would work on is being very careful to get the whole of the subject within the frame before pressing the shutter. It can be very offputting to the viewer to see the subject cut off at the edge. Even a small amount cut off, as here, really damages the composition. --MichaelMaggs 21:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ursus arctos at Skansen

• I dont have any specific question, I just want some feedback. What is bad in the image? How could I fix it? Leo Johannes 14:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's always easier to take a good photo than to fix a mediocre one in post-processing. In this photo, I'd focus on the following issues: lighting, cropping and sharpness, in that order.
  • With respect to lighting, the dynamic range (difference in light levels) between the part of the bear that's in the sun and that part that's not is apparently a bit more than your camera is capable of handling. This has led to some rather noisy underexposure, particularly on the hind leg, as well as some overexposure, particularly around the left ear, both leading to loss of detail. The rock to the right of the bear is the largest bright object in the image and thereby commands undue attention. Unfortunately, lighting is hard to fix without re-shooting. If this has already been post-processed, you may have more luck going back to the original image and working on the light levels selectively in different ways for different parts of the image.
  • As for the cropping, having the main subject smack in the middle of the image rarely makes for an effective and interesting composition. It's usually more effective to make use of the rule of thirds, for example by ensuring the nose of the bear is one third of the image's width from the top and one third from its right side. A centred composition might be fine for an encyclopædic image, where documentation is arguably more important than artistic presentation, but in that case, there is still room for a tighter crop to remove unimportant elements.
  • Sharpness is another aspect that can be hard to fix perfectly in post-processing. At full resolution, there is some blurring in this image. Ideally, I'd like to be able to see each individual hair of the bear. Most blurring occurs because of camera shake, so using a tripod is usually recommended. Failing that, support from a rock, railing or other solid object can also be helpful (use a jacket or similar to make the surface softer and more adjustable). Remember that the effects of camera shake get amplified when zooming. The perceived sharpness can be improved somewhat by careful use of unsharp mask.
  • On the plus side, the depth of field seems rather appropriate, as the bear in the background is clearly identifiable as such, providing context, but without blending with the subject or detracting from it. The head-on pose is also good; a lot of people are not patient enough to wait for the subject to present a useful angle. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have edited it and uploaded a new version: Image:Ursus arctos at Skansen spring 2008-7-edited.JPG. Is that better? I do not think so. Leo Johannes 12:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the cropping, and the rock is less obtrusive, but the post-processing of the bear itself is too obvious and unnatural. When working with selections or masks, try not to overshoot the region you want to work on, and use some feathering if appropriate. The bear also looks rather grey and flat, yet the details in the underexposed areas are still missing. Avoiding overexposure and underexposure is not about avoiding perfect white and perfect black altogether; a good exposure usually includes both, so the bear's pupils, nostrils and a small part of the shadiest parts of its fur should be black, and the highlights at the tips of the most sunlit hairs should be quite bright. (The auto levels function in Gimp often gives a reasonable approximation.) —LX (talk, contribs) 13:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I will stop working with the photo now, because I think I am not good enough in editing images (a few days ago, I could nothing more than cropping images). Leo Johannes 17:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope I wasn't too harsh in my feedback. Practice makes perfect, so keep trying. There are a lot of good tutorials on both photography and post-processing at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/. And like I said initially, no matter how good the post-processing skills, most of the end result is determined when you hear the shutter click. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You were not too harsh. I will look at that site, thanks for the link. Leo Johannes 10:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)