Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Montana horses.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Montana horses.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2017 at 21:40:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
- Info created by Montanabw - uploaded by Montanabw - nominated by Pine -- Pine✉ 21:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Pine✉ 21:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Feels good but not outstanding to me. The light is a little hazy, and the horses aren't super-sharp, so I'm judging this as a "horses-in-landscape" photo. The landscape is quite nice but not so unbelievably fantastic that what I see as shortcomings in this picture are sufficiently counterbalanced for a feature, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek: I would be interested in a more detailed critique if you'd like to comment further at my talkpage... I'm particularly interested in improving on the technical side...which is, I think, where you are seeing "shortcomings"? Montanabw (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Sorry, I have very little technical knowledge about photography; I can only say what I see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- That's perfectly OK, Ikan, I'm just learning the FP process here at Commons -- I figured out the Featured Article process at en.wiki, and any form of feedback is useful. Montanabw (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Camera wasn't held horizontal. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Jan Arkesteijn: Can you explain what you mean by this? I was holding the camera horizontally... ? Montanabw (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Montanabw, it feels the image is not horizontal. Closer inspection confirms the image is tilted to the right. Just a bit, but enough to notice it. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Jan Arkesteijn -- can you possibly add an annotation like W.carter did to show me where you were looking to see the tilt? Was it the fence in front of the two mares? (I see it is a wee bit off level when I use post-processing tools on the original) I'm trying to train my eye to catch this stuff -- I CAN straighten an image -- and thought I had! Anything else that the others haven't already mentioned? Montanabw (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- The fence and the horse on the right suggest everything is tilted, but of course that is not decisive. So I had to zoom on the houses in the background to get the conformation. Anyway, this seems nitpicking. It is the overall impression of tilt that made me make my comment. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Jan Arkesteijn -- can you possibly add an annotation like W.carter did to show me where you were looking to see the tilt? Was it the fence in front of the two mares? (I see it is a wee bit off level when I use post-processing tools on the original) I'm trying to train my eye to catch this stuff -- I CAN straighten an image -- and thought I had! Anything else that the others haven't already mentioned? Montanabw (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Montanabw, it feels the image is not horizontal. Closer inspection confirms the image is tilted to the right. Just a bit, but enough to notice it. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Ikan. It's a nice photo but it is not outstanding enough for FP IMO, sorry. --cart-Talk 10:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- W.carter: Ditto to what I asked of Ikan, above... interested in ways to improve, particularly on the technical side... Montanabw (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict)Ok, will do. It looks like you have used autofocus and the sharpness has ended up on the fence instead of on the horses, had you used manual focus, perhaps with a 'following' function on one of the horses' heads it would have been better. You could have used f/11 and got the background a bit sharper, the light is not optimal for this shot since it is a bit flat and some shadows and bright sunlight would have added a "wow"-factor to the photo, the trees in the background have almost no detail in the foliage. You also have just a bit too much in the photo, the view gets divided in two section, it would have been better if you had made a pic of just the left side (see note) that would have given you two clear lines of fence with the horses in the rule-of-thirds section. Now the fence only leaves the viewer with a feeling of being fenced in. If you use raw format to photograph in, there are functions in some programs to reduce the haze in the distance. Since I also guess that you are used to handling horses, maybe you could have used some trick to get the horse(s) to have their head over the fence instead of behind it like it is with one of them here. Had these things gone right, this photo might have had the wow-factor we are always looking for here at FPC. --cart-Talk 10:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm... per your annotation -- simply cropping the image more, then...? Provided that doing so still has it at high enough resolution? Montanabw (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- A bit quick on the draw there. I made the annotation first and was writing the full answer. It is not as simple as just cropping, you asked what could have been better and the annotation was only part of the answer. --cart-Talk 10:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oh! That is just awesome feedback! Precisely what I am trying to learn... one problem I am having is that my eyesight is ... aging ... and operator error occurs with manual focus, but I can usually set AF to pinpoint one spot and get what I want most of the time...and now I DO "see" what you mean about focus on the fences! You are right about the rest of the composition problems too...horses are like... 1000-pound cats when it comes to getting photos of them -- there's a reason there are not a lot of great horse photos on commons ...LOL! One dilemma is the decision to go shutter priority or aperture priority in my settings -- I absolutely see that f/11 would have been better, but with horses, one also needs to stop motion ... would 1/100 still have "frozen" them? (ears up is the biggest challenge with horses, you hold down the shutter on sports setting and do goofy things to try and get those dang ears...) I deliberately set ISO at 100 to try and get rid of artefacts, could a higher ISO still have given me adequate quality? Any advice on ISO?? Montanabw (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- I used to get very good photos of my cat by placing small treats and goodies just where I wanted it to have its head. Ever stuck a piece of tuna on a door post? --cart-Talk 10:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Horses will sell their souls for carrots or compressed alfalfa hay pellets. Or grain... ! Montanabw (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The fences get in the way. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Thank you all for the feedback so far, and I look forward to an opportunity to improve the quality of the images I submit. Thank you, Pine for your encouragement! Anyone here who wants to see another image I just uploaded and critique it at the file talkpage (for my future "eddification"), see File:Grazing Montana Horses.jpg -- it's uploaded with no post-processing, other than to convert from RAW to JPG. Montanabw (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results: