Commons:Photography critiques

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut
 SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days.

color palette logo Welcome to the Photography critiques!

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

Would you like a second opinion before nominating a photograph of yours as a Quality Image, Valued Image or Featured Picture candidate, can't decide which of your images to enter into one of the Photo Challenges? Or do you have specific questions about how to improve your photography or just would like some general feedback?

This is the right page to gather other people's opinions!


Update this page
Update this page


Start a new topic

If you want general suggestions to a good photo, you can ask here, and we already wrote guidelines.

See image guidelines >>

If you don't get some terminology used here, don't be shy you can ask about it, or read

See photography terms >>

Please insert new entries at the bottom, and comment on oldest entries first.

To prevent archiving use {{subst:DNAU}}, because SpBot archives all sections after 90 days, unless archiving has been postponed or suppressed through the use of {{subst:DNAU}}. You can ask the bot to archive a section earlier by using {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} – then it will be archived after 7 days.


Archive


Potential candidate for Quality photo

[edit]

Hi all!

I'd like to ask you to criticize my panoramic photo based on Quality images guidelines. The photo is File:Abano Mineral Lake.jpg David Osipov (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad, but it seems titled clock-wise. Yann (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'll try to fix it. David Osipov (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Florence image

[edit]
View of Hurricane Florence from the International Space Station

I am planning on nomination this image for FP status since it is the lead image for the English Wikipedia page for Tropical cyclone as well as, in my opinion, superior to an existing featured picture, showing more of the tropical cyclone and its surroundings as well as being superior in quality with a larger resolution and file size. If there are any flaws, I'd appreciate it if someone were to fix them so I can nominate it for FP status. Please let me know about your thoughts! Zzzs (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks great, but the overlap in the bottom right feels a bit distracting to me, even though it does balance with the one on the left.iMahesh (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I.Mahesh I have cropped out what I assumed to be the overlap you mentioned to be distracting. Care to take another look? Zzzs (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks great now. iMahesh (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential candidates for FPs

[edit]

I'm curious to know if any of these images could be potential candidates for Featured Pictures. Could you help me evaluate them and let me know if any fixes are required?

iMahesh (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I.Mahesh: I like the first one from a compositional point of view, but there are visible masking artefacts around the shrine and tree. — Draceane talkcontrib. 14:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting better pictures out of existing camera—or a new one?

[edit]

I was handed a great photography opportunity last week—but none of my pictures of the mountain partly in the sun and shrouded by fog came out looking as good if you zoom in. (There are unexplained blurry patches especially in shadier areas.) My Pixel 8a smartphone does pretty well depending on the lighting, I have a number of quality images with it, but it seems to struggle with darker lighting (despite built in HDR). Anyway, do you guys have any tips for getting better pictures in the future using this same camera or is it my only option to buy a new one? Buidhe (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pixel 8, like most modern smart phones, works with a very high-resolution sensor whose data volume is normally downscaled to a significantly lower resolution for output as a JPG. This automatically compensates for the usual problems of small image sensors and typical shortcomings of the lens, in particular CA and optical distortion. At the same time, many image effects are made possible. These mechanisms are particularly necessary for lens error corrections. The disadvantage is that the mechanisms designed to mitigate the shortcomings of small sensors, in particular the unavoidably high image noise, can hardly be influenced. They are often too strong, which is particularly noticeable in blurred dark parts of the image where the algorithms cannot distinguish between noise and actual structures.
Now your Pixel can also save RAW files, with which it should be possible to carry out all the necessary processing yourself afterwards, but I fear that this is not a very enjoyable task.
The only thing that really helps against such unwanted processing artifacts is to use a camera with a larger sensor. Of course, you can no longer carry it around comfortably in your jacket pocket. --Smial (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Photography_critiques&oldid=964323731"