Commons:Photography critiques

Shortcut: COM:PC

2006: October, November, December 2007: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2008: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2009: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2010: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2011: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2012: January

Please insert new entries at the top.

Please comment on oldest entries (nearest the bottom) first.

For some suggestions on what makes for a good photo, and to understand the terminology used here, you may like to read Commons:Image guidelines.

May 2012

Chapel in Urbanowice

• 
• 

I would like to get some comments to improve my pics in future. The container on the image 07 are on purpose; i like it :) - but maybe you find it stupid so I put an other image on the chapel as well :) ...Sicherlich ^talk 04:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Two images from Earth'sbuddy

Propeller plane at the Abbotsford air show

Perched Seagull

April 2012

Georgian bracelet

bracelet

I was wondering what people thought of this? Jonathan Cardy (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of noise. The EXIF disappeared. What's your camera? Yann (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I used a casio exilim 10 megapixel and cropped the image with Gwenview. Jonathan Cardy (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. The image quality is limited by your camera capabilities. Yann (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Photo is OK as long as you don't zoom in. Then, some colour noise in the background is visible and the object itself is unsharp or has artifacts (JPG-artifacts?). If you upload jpg-files, better without (or almost without) jpg-compression (jpg quality = 100%). In my opinion, it does not meet the formal critera to become a Quality Image, but it is not a bad photo, so why not use it for an article, if no better image is available? -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I don’t know what Gwenview does, but you can crop (and also rotate and pixelize parts) JPEG images losslessly with special software with some limitations: Help:JPEG#Editing_JPEGs.

Gapado Scenary

A scenary taken on Gapado, the second-most southern Island of Korea. You can see Jeju Island on far.

This is my own work and was edited contrast of the upper(far) part. But I need a feedback which one(original version and this) is better. I want to know what is needed to become a quality image. Please let me know any kind of thought about this picture. --Naturehead (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Updated file with better quality(improved resolution). No zoom performed and just found larger source. Welcome any suggestions or opinions. Thanks. --Naturehead (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

February

Some computer adapters

I'd be grateful for a feedback on this picture of a couple of computer adapters - Useful for the encyclopedia? Maybe a candidate for QI? Thanks, --S nova (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm, I think a bit too noisy for QI, maybe it would pass on VI under the scope 'Computer adapters' or something similar. And I think it would be more useful if you'd name each one, what both the male and female parts are. Either way, it certainly has its place on EnWiki; I've already added it to an article. Good work. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback! I've added some (hopefully useful) annotations. As far as the noise goes, I agree (thanks for the hint, leaves me a bit puzzled as I used the noise reduction feature of my D90). When I've time, I'll see if I can do something about it with Photoshop elements or the GIMP.--S nova (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• I don't find it too noisy, but it is lacking a bit in sharpness. -- King of Hearts (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Now slightly (well, hopefully ...) sharpened & de-noised. --S nova (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Holiday Inn Express, Daytona Beach Shores

I would appreciate an evaluation to see if this image could qualify for promotion to VI, QI or FP. Although it was loaded from Flickr, it is my photo. Thank you for your time. Gamweb (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• To me, vertical perspective distortion. Too little size (1,024 × 768 pixels), can't be QI.--213.60.77.80 22:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Too tight crop at bottom --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.77.80 (talk • contribs)

It is a quite attractive, sharp image, reasonably exposed (although it could be brightened a little with little loss of detail) and proper colour balance. But it probably wouldn't get through QI or FP due to its low resolution - 1024x768 is quite small for Commons images, we like them as big as possible to allow for the widest variety of uses. The minimum normally acceptable in QI & FP is 2 mega pixels (so something 1650x1250 minimum). For a static object like a building (that is not liable to run away and isn't bending in the wind), a much higher resolution tends to be demanded (people take multiple closeup shots of different parts of the building and stitch them together into one large image (eg see Hugin)).

Another aspect that would worry QI and FP reviewers would be the perspective distortion that makes the image look as though it tappers towards the top or leans back away from the camera - quite a normal effect of human vision too, but one which can be easily 'corrected' with digital photographs (and generally results is a more 'pleasing' image, vertical lines looking vertical not sloped).

Framing of images is not my strong point, but I expect that the half tree on the right and street light protruding from the left, should be removed. Clearing the cars out of the car park would probably keep some reviewers happy (but not the hotel management :-)

FP reviewers wouldn't be excited by the subject (just another un-exceptional hotel), so probably not worth going there. VI might be interested if it is a good example of something (this style of architecture perhaps?). If you have a high resolution version and 'correct' the perspective distortion I think it may reasonably pass QI.

-- Tony Wills (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

December

Logo contest for Humanitarian OSM Team (HOT)

Would like some comments on this, there is a logo contest http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Team_Logo for the humanitarian team going on, you are all welcome to participate. Idea is that HOT = flame = danger. and the humanitarian team helps where there are problems.

Cool idea. I think you should erase paper folds from under the magnifier because they wouldn't be the same scale as those around. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Funny you metion that, the error is also in the other OSM logo.

i will think about how to do it better. thanks for the tips. 16:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of electrical equipment

My comment: To me the image seems to have some slight colour noise in the grey areas. Sharpening at the edges is clearly visible, I consider the magnitude borderline, but still the image is not really sharp. I presume it was the camera that sharpened. One the plus side I like the composition, lighting is ok. But before you go for QI or FP, this image is less than two Megapixels in size and hence not eligible for QI and FP. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Several months ago, I took these pictures and uploaded them here. I'm new to Commons, so I'd appreciate a critique of these photos and whether they have any chance at promotion to VI, QI, or FP. I took the first using a Kodak EasyShare Z650 (JPEG artifacts?), the second using a Nikon Coolpix 5000 (as uncompressed TIFF). I have made minor editing (lossless cropping and/or color correction) and stripped the Exif data for privacy reasons, but I can provide relevant details here if necessary. Thanks, PleaseStand ^(talk) 04:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Uploading such an image as PNG is nonsense. Just upload a JPG at full camera resolution. Less waste of bandwith and better overall quality. --Dschwen (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the photo above to the JPEG version (which I already had uploaded). PleaseStand ^(talk) 05:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the cheater plug could be nominated at VI within the scope "Cheater plug", and maybe the centralized vacuum cleaner could be nominated as VI within the scope "Centralized vacuum cleaner". The latter photo has a more cluttered composition than the first, which is a good illustration of its subject IMO. I would not recommend nominating any of them as QI and FP. --Slaunger (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Zea mays under a microscope

Is there any chance to have this image promoted as VI, QI or even FP or is there a chance for achieving this aim with some processing? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it could easily become a VI, but it has far too bad compression artefacts for any other chosen status. No processing method I know can fix that sufficiently. Next time, try increasing the image quality your camera produces, if possible. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be a lot better if this was shot RAW. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do not know any digital compact camera that was was able to shoot RAW back in 2004-2005, with the exception of some CHDK-able Canon products... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

April

Gravestone with swastika

Any comments and suggestions about this picture ? I think it has a good educational value for showing a use of swastika in Alsace before the Nazis, something not unusal on gravestones from this time in this region.

If you think that another type of light/time of day would give a better picture, I can try another shot following your suggestions. --Pethrus (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the lighting is great, but the motive is awfully tightly cropped and the viewer doesn't get a sense of scale and context. Perhaps it would help if you uploaded a shot from further away and linked the two images. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I uploaded a shot of the full gravestone. Should I try another shot with the immediate skull surroundings? I fear that the swastika wouldn't be as visible then. --Pethrus (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO, this is good enough if you want to emphasize the swastika. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)