This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I'd like opinions before nominating this picture to QI, but if it also qualifies for other categories please do let me know. Thanks in advance. Regards, —MarcoAurelio13:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Without even considering the quality of the photo, it's too small. To become a QI, a photo has to have at least 2 megapixels. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd appreciate input on this set of photos. Right now there are 3 versions: original, contrast fix, autofix. I used Pixlr. I also have GIMP but find the interface awkward. What are opinions of the original and how post-processing has gone so far? I think a tiny crop off the top and some of the left side might be in order too. After feedback I may put it up for QI. Thank you. PumpkinSkytalk20:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
PumpkinSky, this edition created a blue cast at the edge of the flower, would be better you treat that before the nomination, and you highly increased the noise of it, especially in the shadows, would be better if you clean that up.
When bright up the photo, you created a distraction at the bottom left and in the right top corners, this is a easy fix. And you bright up too much, some petals blow up, and we lost some information.
Just about the photo, it's a little bit unbalanced, you could crop more squarely to improve that.
I really enjoy User:Jakubhal's series of photos of the The International Festival of Street Theatre in Kraków, especially those showing performers connected by this orange costume. I think the picture I've posted here is the best of that series. Do you think I should nominate it at FPC, or do you think it would have trouble getting enough votes there? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I find it very hard to predict what will and won't be successful at FPC. I have a photo nomination there now and it looked like it'll pass but now it looks like it won't. Oh well. Anyway, for this photo I think it might pass FPC but I also see Yann's point. Maybe make a copy and crop out the top at least a little below the lamp that is hanging down and see how it looks. Just my two cents. PumpkinSkytalk20:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid all of these street theatre photos would be deemed to have a distracting background, but better to find that out here than at FPC. Thanks for the feedback. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll be interested to see what other people say. My answer is, maybe, and it's worth nominating if you like. I'd prefer for the little strip of unsharp foreground to be cropped out, but others might not care about that. I find File:Spheres3cu.jpg a more interesting composition, but this photo has a neater composition and it's sharper, with softer light, so I think it's a more likely FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
See my QIs at the bottom of my user page. The Wat Mae Chon photo was suggested for FPC but the vote was 3-2 so it didn't make it. Of the remaining ones, I think File:Bridge on the River Kwai - tourist plaza.JPG is probably the one with the best chance at FPC. Ideas for this or my other QIs that might make FP? PumpkinSkytalk01:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
It certainly deserves the badges it got, but at FPC I would probably oppose for lack of WOW. It depicts its subject well, but simply filling the frame with your subject is not always the best option for FPC. There are some distracting elements in the frame that make it a bit busy (tree front right, boat on the left, pole and roofs in the background). There are some interesting forms and patterns in that bridge that could be worth exploring by getting closer and experimenting with camera angles, though. --El Grafo (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
That's a pretty good base to start from, but I think it could benefit from some more editing. Maybe a bit of levels adjustment, making the bright parts brighter. Maybe a little touch of sharpening (but be careful with that). I'd have to give it a try myself, but I don't have access to the right software right now. Speaking of which: For this kind of work, I wouldn't waste my time fiddling around with pixel-level editors like Photoshop or Gimp. Something like Adobe Lightroom or CaptureOne (to name the popular commercial ones) which mostly work on the image as a whole are usually used for this. Plus at some point in the future you will probably want to switch from in-camera JPGs to shooting RAW, and then knowing how to handle one of these will become incredibly useful. Free alternatives have already been named above: en:RawTherapee, en:Darktable if you're on Linux/Mac. Personally, I prefer en:LightZone for most of my quick edits, but that's a matter of taste. hth, --El Grafo (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Thank you very much. Based on this and someone else's recommendation, I bought a copy of Lightroom. I think I'll start with a copy of the original photo and see how it goes. PumpkinSkytalk11:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@El Grafo: See the Lightshop version. I deleted the other processed versions, so there're only the original and Lightshop one. I also processed another picture of this plant--it's below the first one. Any thoughts? PumpkinSkytalk21:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Second, the link given to the source image was not there when I checked months ago and is not there today. So, I cannot verify caption. Also, this linked source is a commercial seller that may not provide accurate descriptions.
Also, the date about 1900 does not make sense. I am not aware that The 13th Dalai Lama traveled south of his nation, Tibet until he went to Darjeeling in 1910 to escape the Chinese invasion forces in Lhasa lead by General Chao Er-feng know to Tibetans as "Butcher Chao" and his cavalry.
Can the portion of the image's caption with the name "13th Dalai Lama" be deleted until a verifiable source can be found that proves the caption is accurate? Or what is the proper way to proceed with this issue? Also, what happens to the other webpages that currently use this image, if the caption changes?
Not sure if this is the best forum for this, but I'm hoping to get some advice regarding where the weak link is: my camera or my technique.
I have an Olympus E-PL6, which is an entry-level micro 4/3 camera. In general I've been quite happy with it. I have a few different lenses for it, all of which have produced decent results. However, recently I decided I wanted to try a lens with a long zoom. Among other reasons, I've wanted to be able to take better pictures of birds.
First I tried the cheaper Olympus M.Zuiko 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 II. After playing with it for a couple days, I was really disappointed. I used a tripod and remote shutter, and took hundreds of pictures of various subjects outdoors in good weather. The lens was surprisingly dark, requiring either brightly lit subjects or a higher ISO, and the chromatic aberration was pretty bad. Perhaps these can be chalked up it being the cheaper option. Autofocus was severely lacking at 300mm, but even when I used manual focus on completely still subjects, the image quality was poor. This and this are what autofocus produced, more often than not. This one and this one are examples of the very best images I got with this lens, taken when the bird had been completely still and I was able to get closer than usual. They're still not very good quality.
Second I rented what I understand to be the nicest super telephoto available for MFT: Panasonic 100-400mm f4.0-6.3 pro. First thing I noticed was that, since it uses its own tripod mount, any attempt to zoom by normal means resulted in the camera itself rotating unless I held it down. That seems avoidable and squarely in the domain of user error. Again, however, I found the same problems -- though less pronounced this time. There was still a darkness issue, and at maximum zoom, even when the subject was perfectly still, I could not get a good, sharp image. For example, this turtle was maybe 15 feet in front of me and entirely still. No real brightness issue here, since it was pretty sunny. I took multiple shots, trying autofocus and manual, and this is more or less the result. Then there was this chipmunk, also nearby, and also pretty still when I took this. The biggest problem here is obviously that it was a bright day and I was shooting from under tree cover, so the light is working against me -- that much I can appreciate. But still, I'd figure that if I cranked up the ISO, while it would get noisy, it should at least be crisper? Switching to manual focus, there's this great egret and, finally a bullfrog, in a fairly bright area, quite still.
Worth mentioning none of these have been processed at all, and I'm certainly not saying they should be good -- there are other problems, indeed. What I'm looking for is some guidance regarding where my biggest problem is. Am I seeing limitations in the camera? In the MFT format? Am I approaching the settings, etc. incorrectly? Thanks. — Rhododendritestalk | 06:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure as I'm not experienced enough yet, but I am quite interested in what the feedback is on this. Best wishes. PumpkinSkytalk10:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
For the Olympus lens, looks like there's a focus calibration issue; the lens is always back focusing. The robin pictures at the end are simply quite dark and a bit shaken. You can bring the lens to a qualified technician to fix, it should be fairly simple. Besides producing out of focus images, it looks okay in sharpness (judging from the grass that's in focus), par for the course for a $400 telephoto lens. For the 100-400 pictures, particularly the great egret picture, there's some weird pattern going on in out-of-focus specular highlights. When there's such a strong pattern in out-of-focus point light sources, it's likely to be an optical issue. See: [3] Either: 1) you may be using a low quality filter, 2) you're shooting through a glass window, 3) the rented lens is broken (it had possibly been dropped a few times by a previous renter), 4) there are severe temperature differences, causing mirage to degrade image quality, (5) the lens was shaken or the image stabilization was not working properly. Telephoto lenses are very sensitive things as they have a very low optical power. In other words, they bend the light only very slightly to begin with, and bending it slightly more will ruin the sharpness. There's a reason why people drop $8000 on high quality 400mm primes. dllu(t,c)15:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Dllu: thanks. I purchased the Olympus lens to try it out as I couldn't find it to rent. The results were so bad I sent it back with a note about the results just in case they wanted to take a look. Regarding the other, I wasn't using a filter, wasn't shooting through a glass window, and the temperature was very mild, so it seems the last remaining issues you raise point to possibly having used two defective lenses? Sheesh. Conspicuously missing from your list of possible causes is the camera body -- is there no way it's responsible? — Rhododendritestalk | 18:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
For the Olympus lens, the body could definitely have been the culprit. There is some miscalibration in the autofocus which can be either in the lens or the body. For the Panasonic lens, the problems clearly optical. The only body-related issue that can cause that would be a malfunctioning of the in-body image stabilization of the PEN E-PL6. Try testing it on a tripod with the image stabilization turned off and see if it helps at all. dllu(t,c)23:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hard for me to say. I find FPC way too unpredictable. Like the new POY, in my opinion that shouldn't be a FP at all. PumpkinSkytalk14:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
My personal favorite is the one on the left, but I suggest waiting a couple days. Someone else will probably come by and comment. PumpkinSkytalk22:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I like that best, compositionally. I would expect to vote for that one for FP if nominated, but I can't speak for other people. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
They all have high educational value and are sharp and all, but the light is too dull for such static objects for an FP on Commons where the voters are always looking for "wow" or "drama". The one to the right, which you have nominated at FPC has a cool angle and could work if it had better light. I think if you crop the middle one to focus on one section, so you really feel how big these things are, and give it a bit more contrast and light so that the details can be better seen, it would have a chance. Take a look at the suggestion I have made in my dropbox, it has more impact since you are almost afraid it will roll down and crush the guys next to it. If you try to get too much into a photo, you risk loosing the audience's interest. --cart-Talk08:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I would like to nominate this file by Ermell for FP, because I think it's beautiful and has a lovely composition, but one thing gives me pause: Is the white balance making the sky too green? What do you think?
Hy Ikan, thanks for supporting my image. I cannot find any green in the sky. The problem with that picture was that the sunlight was already very orange so I reduced the saturation a bit.--Ermell (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd love some critiques of a couple of photos I took while hiking recently. I was trying to play with the depth of field and capture the trail fading off into the photo. I'm new to this, am trying to improve and thought this might be a good place to get some advice so my next pictures will be better. Thanks! Strafpeloton2 (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
In the one with carvings, tree is very sharp, but the background IMHO is TOO blurry. It even has a blotchy appearance. F/2 is too big; probably f/5-f/8 would have been better. In the one with the white blaze, I like the background much better. The tree with the blaze is fairly well focused but the area around the blaze itself is a little over exposed. Just my 2 cents. PumpkinSkytalk02:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! I see what you mean about the F setting in the first picture. In the second, I'm just learning about overexposure. I think that means that area of the photo is overly bright, but not necessarily artificially white? Your point is partly made when you say the blaze is white, because it's really the same color blue as in the other picture :) . Can you recommend anything I could have done differently in the second one? Do I adjust the ISO setting? Strafpeloton2 (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
THe problem with the one with the white blaze is that it appears the sun is on the tree but the background is shady. So if you darken the blaze with a lower ISO it'll darken the background. Your best bet is to get a photo editing program. I use Lightroom. You can pay a monthly forever fee of $10 or buy it outright for $150. There are a ton of training videos for Lightroom. There many other programs out there too. Look around. THen you can darken just the area around the blaze. PumpkinSkytalk23:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
That's helpful, PumpkinSky. I'm not sure I'm ready for photo editing software yet; I'm just trying to take better pictures. Once I get a better baseline I'll have to give the software a try. In the mean time, it seems like I should avoid huge light contrasts. I appreciate the input! Strafpeloton2 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
File:Baleine à bosse et son baleineau 2.jpg
If you all don't mind, here's one more. Right now, it's in Consensual Review for QI, but my question is about FP. Photos that are exciting enough can pass FP even in some cases in which the technical quality is insufficient to pass QI. So do you think this photo would be worth nominating at FPC, or is the invisibility of either whale's face disqualifying? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
{[ping|Ikan Kekek}}, it's hard for me to way will pass at FPC. I do agree it's okay to allow leeway on tech merits for very difficult shots. I know there's an understanding about clear heads for animal shots, but here we have two large moving animals, a bouncing ship, and sea swells, so I'm not sure but I'd vote for it. Plus it's a hard to obtain shot. I've spent many months on ships at sea and I've seen whales but never close enough for a photo like this, so I'd vote for it. PumpkinSkytalk11:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure, though I'd lean toward no. It's an arresting image, but at full size, I think the quality is inferior to many FPs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I am not an expert but the right side is too dark, picture is asymetric but this asymetry is not used to guide the eye to an interesting subjet or figure, IMO, here is a small colletion of featured images that we can use to improve ours.
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:13th_Dalai_Lama_with_the_King_of_Sikkim,_Darjeeling,_India,_c._1900.jpg){kind=link}
