Commons:Photography critiques

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days.

Any chances for FP?[edit]

Hi. Recently I took and edited pictures of some utility goods. I know that Featured Pictures must be good of technical quality and be one of the best on Commons. But I have doubts about that "wow factor" – of course, many FP are magnificent (landscapes, monuments, etc.), but I can see a lot of very good images of common things (usually on a white background). I suppose they show objects in an interesting way (e.g. File:2017 Nikon D5500.jpg or File:Electric steam iron.jpg).

• 
• 
• 
• 

Well, that calculator is a common object, but in my humble opinion, it's a very good representation of a modern pocket calculator on Commons (see FP and QI in the Calculators category).

Pictures of the calculator and folding camera are edited (which I marked with the "Retouched picture" template) – I deleted uneven grey background and other things metioned in each file description.

I wonder which picture has a chance for FP. I would be greatful for response :) --LoMit ^talk 16:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I added a new image --LoMit ^talk 14:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• LoMit Sorry that no one has replied so far. I think your photos are very valuable and they have a high potential at COM:VIC if you choose to nominate them there—especially the camera and calculator, which have a very well-defined scope. as for FPC, there's only one way to find out for sure. Even if unsuccessful, you would probably get tips on taking even better photographs in the future. Buidhe (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, LoMit. I know we already judged the donkey photo. The first three all look like serious FP candidates to me, but I can't predict how people would react to them. I don't think I'd vote for the lamp, but I'd consider voting for at least the calculator. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial assessment of my work[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

Critique requested[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Possible FP?[edit]

I've got a few photos, general critiques wanted, and if they could survive FP nomination. The first two are a one or the other, if they could survive FP nomination, which one is better.

• 
• 
• 

Sea Cow (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures are well done, but the subject is not appealing to me—highways ruin cities. Buidhe (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

mashed indoor photographs / Matschfotos bei Innenaufnahmen[edit]

Why do I get such mashed results? exempli gratia / Warum sind die Resultate matschig, z.B.:

• 
• 

OK, it is just a handy camera but I am clueless. / OK, es ist nur ein Handyfotoapparat. Aber trotzdem bin ich etwas ratlos. Wie kann ich das verhindern? --Mateus2019 (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd start with switching HDR mode off. In many cases, that's doing more harm than good. Especially in the second shot, there's no reason to turn it on in the first place, as the painting is lit quite evenly. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danke, das probiere ich beim nächsten Mal! --Mateus2019 (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Na, das gehört aber zu den Basics der Fotografie: Drinnen hast du viel weniger Licht aus draußen. Nicht nur ein bisschen weniger, sondern wirklich viel weniger. Um damit eine angemessene Belichtung zu bekommen, muss entweder lange belichtet werden (halbe Sekunde oder so) mit der Gefahr des Verwackelns, oder die Sensorempfindlichkeit muss raufgesetzt werden. Letzteres wird gemacht. Allerdings wächst mit der Empfindlichkeit auch das Bildrauschen, das hinterher wieder rausgerechnet werden muss, und rausgerechnet wird Rauschen, indem Details zugekleistert werden. (Die Zwischenergebnisse siehst du nicht, nur das Endergebnis.) Auch wenn Handykameras in letzter Zeit viel besser geworden sind: Für ernsthaftes Fotografieren (also wenn du mit den Bildern was anfangen willst – Nachbearbeitung, Vergrößerung, Posterdruck, Gelddamitverdienen) ist ein Handy wirklich nur ein Notbehelf. Tip: Ich verkaufe demnächst meine alte OM-D E-M1, damit machst du auf jeden Fall Faktor 20 bessere Bilder als mit dem Handy :) --Kreuzschnabel 19:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible FP?[edit]

Will it be feasible in FP? Not so much for the quality of the photo but for the wow effect. I await your opinion.

• 

(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say probably no. This double rainbow must have been impressive IRL though! Buidhe (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pity it’s cut off on both sides. Quality … well, you can’t hide it was a phonecam. I wouldn’t nominate it. Category:Double_rainbows is not that empty after all :) --Kreuzschnabel 21:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice picture, but I agree with the others - it undoubtedly had wow in person, but I don't think the photo has enough wow to pass at FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worth trying to apply this photo as QI?[edit]

It has been a while since I posted here in Photo critiques, and I'm wondering if other Commons users think this picture I took back in Aprl is worthy of being a QI candidate. All feedback is welcomed! Tet (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]