Commons:Photography critiques/February 2015

Winter photo of a radar dome

Where can the photo itself be still improved, and how to improve the scene if I one happens to be at that location again? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a very solid photo as it is. I'm not sure if this helps you, but if the location allows it, I'd probably try three things: 1) Step away a little further (might not be possible) to relax the perspective a little, make the building less threatening, 2) give the subject slightly more room to breathe, and put it off-center and 3) as always, if your trip allows it, be there at a slightly later hour with a little softer light (this one isn't bad at all because the snow softens it) and slightly more contrast because then you have a shadow side and a light side on the dome. Scribble: [1]. Cheers. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• 
• 

Thank you for your suggestions. I have actually tried several shots, of which I already have uploaded two more. Stepping back is possible, but then the foot-steps in the snow become more pronounced. From that side it is always an uphill perspective, but one could crop the photo putting the building off-center. Also included a photo from a different angle, but then the foreground is busier which might distract from the main building, and the winter effects are less pronounced. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, this one gives a nice overview over the area. I think leaving more space towards the shadow side is not as good as leaving more side towards the sunny side. But from the sommet03-image, I think taking one or two steps to the left and then making a two-photo panorama, with the existing direction being the right frame and an additional one towards the left would, in my opinion, be ideal. The step to the left (and necessarily slightly down) will make the shadows on the right less visible and move them to the very edge of the frame. And open blue space on the left is a great relaxing area leading the eye to the subject. Everything only my opinion though. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

Well, I have browsed through my photos again. The first two show some shadow on the radome. How do they compare to the previous ones in your opinion? The third one shows a little bit more scenery, and the fourth maybe could be cropped such to have the radome more to the right. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

And I fudged a photo according to your sketched suggestion (you may hunt for stitching errors-they do exist...) -- KlausFoehl (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

KlausFoehl, good, good, rule of thirds, interesting sky colour,

Did you shoot raw? This photo have a strong chromatic aberration, this need to be fixed. RAW are better to recover that.

Do you still needs to give more room to the photo, less ground, and more sky, the ground here do not add to the photo, but a little bit of sky could improve your image. [2] [bad photo], but gives the idea.

Be careful with weird shadows, create distractions, but, you seems to know.

This are stars at the sky? You could explore more of that.

Looks like a cold, desert, and high place, but, maybe a golden hour or night be awesome time to shoot. [3] [4] [5], the the last ones are not a great photos, but gives the colour to looking for.

In golden hour, could be better take in the angle of the first one (File:La Dôle sommet02 2015-02-07.jpg).

Measurable elements could also improves our photo, this shows me how big this thing is, looking your photos, I though that it was a smaller place,

And looking other photos, maybe you can improve your ones: [6] [7], or, avoid to create more of the same, and create a unique photo.

Very fast tips. -- RTA 09:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, some answers. Yes I do have RAW files as well. I know that my lense has chromatic aberration. If I plan for a stitched image, I can put the hard transitions into the middle of images. How do you correct for them best? In gimp, I know about making a blurred layer, use grain extract, then remove the colour and finally grain merge. Is there a better way?

More blue sky, this time I do not have a shot in the right direction to stitch the proper sky to it. Yes I know it is tight, and it is already wide angle.

No, these are not stars, but snow blowing in the wind. And you see the stichting limit, the second photo I used, first in the gallery below, does not have snow in the wind.

• 
• 
• 
• 

Thank you for your comments. Golden hour at this time of the year, good suggestion colour-wise, but they do not like you going downhill that late in the day. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, do not put in the middle, keep the rules of third, it is better.

Try the gimplensfun plugging for gimp, this should fix in a better way the chromatic aberration.

No problem with the snow, a faster shoot speed could freeze a little bit better, but it's ok.

Yeah, could be cold :P.

-- RTA 19:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)