Commons:Photography critiques/December 2017
 | 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. |
Soliciting improvement suggestions prior to sending to FPC
Similar to the section above, I'd love to get some opinions about some images I might consider for FPC. Would appreciate honest feedback, especially if you don't think there's any real chance, and would particularly like to hear suggestions for improvement.
- File:Blackwell Island Light (41727).jpg
- File:Steam stacks at Broadway and Dey (91441).jpg
- File:Dahlia cultivar (70112s).jpg
File:Silene vulgaris in Aspen (91171).jpgat FPC now- File:Reeds in Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge (41057).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
I'll leave it there. More than 5 would probably be tedious. :) Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk | 05:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- IMHO steam stacks has too many objects competing for your eye's attention. I think the others have a decent chance at FPC. PumpkinSky talk 11:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was torn on the steam stacks. I agree there's a lot there, but that's also part of the appeal to me, since the chaos, steam, architecture, people, etc. kind of make it a New York stereotype. You're probably right that it doesn't have a shot at FP, though. What made up my mind about the Silene vulgaris image is just now discovering it'll be POTD on frwiki this week. — Rhododendrites talk | 22:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Personally, I find the steam stacks picture the most interesting of the bunch. I'd go for a vertical crop, cutting away a little bit on the left and a lot on the right, barely leaving in the the second light pole. Then politely ask the woman on the zebra crossing to move about one step back and one closer to you ;-P The scene could also look great at night … --El Grafo (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was torn on the steam stacks. I agree there's a lot there, but that's also part of the appeal to me, since the chaos, steam, architecture, people, etc. kind of make it a New York stereotype. You're probably right that it doesn't have a shot at FP, though. What made up my mind about the Silene vulgaris image is just now discovering it'll be POTD on frwiki this week. — Rhododendrites talk | 22:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- IMHO steam stacks has too many objects competing for your eye's attention. I think the others have a decent chance at FPC. PumpkinSky talk 11:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Would this work at FPC?
I think this is a beautiful photo but I can see some flaws that would be spotted be by the sharp eyes at Featured Pictures Candidates. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alllexxxis (talk • contribs) 21:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Alllexxxis: it is a lovely image, to be sure. At FPC, people will open the image at full resolution to look for imperfections. Sometimes minor issues are ok if the image is otherwise exceptional. In this case, the scene is good enough that there's some leeway. However, to be honest I don't think it would be a likely FPC simply because of the sharpness of the foreground. If it were a bit sharper, then I think it would have a good shot. That said, it's hard to predict what people will like, and I've been wrong several times before. :) — Rhododendrites talk | 00:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's a lovely photo, but I have to agree with Rhododendrites, it'd probably fail but I think it'd be close. But I've been wrong several times too. In addition to what he sees, I think the heads of the mare and foal a bit blurry (a little faster shutter speed was needed) and there are two people on the rock at the left, that'd be called "distracting". There are two horses in the background that you can see at full res but that'd be okay. I think you should definitely put this at QIC though. PumpkinSky talk 01:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think it would probably fail at QIC due to sharpness issues, but it might succeed at FPC if people think it has sufficient "wow" to offset this. I'd say go for it, give it a try, but don't be disappointed if it doesn't work out. One thing I noticed: it is currently 6,036 × 6,042 pixels, which is a bit weird. It's hardly noticeable (consciously), but it gave me this strange vague feeling of something being "off". I'd crop those 8 pixels from the top and/or bottom to give it s straight 1:1 aspect ratio. --El Grafo (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's a lovely photo, but I have to agree with Rhododendrites, it'd probably fail but I think it'd be close. But I've been wrong several times too. In addition to what he sees, I think the heads of the mare and foal a bit blurry (a little faster shutter speed was needed) and there are two people on the rock at the left, that'd be called "distracting". There are two horses in the background that you can see at full res but that'd be okay. I think you should definitely put this at QIC though. PumpkinSky talk 01:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. This is a stitching job of several photos, I do this to get the sky right. The result is often an image that has sharpness issues in some parts but not others. Recently it barely worked for [[1]] because the view is somehow exceptional. But I doubt this one would get a pass there.--Alllexxxis (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hunza_Valley,_view_from_Eagle's_Nest.jpg){kind=link}
- I'd agree with this. The horses themselves are probably not sharp enough for FP. However, it's a fantastic motif, so if you have the chance to shoot more photos of it, I'd definitely encourage you to do so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)