Commons:Photography critiques/January 2007

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

two pictures, slightly retouched[edit]

Hello, what do you thing about these two pictures, slightly retouched (colors enhancement)?
Thanks for advice :) Plyd 23:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ps: sorry for the text in the second one, I can't find back the original.

  • Beach in Saint-Coulomb: Correct composition, nice colours (though it seems a little overexposed). But I don't like the curved horizon which is the result of using a wide-angle lens. What is the water mark in the corner, is the image copyrighted? - Alvesgaspar 19:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I took it by myself, but I added the text several years ago. And I lost original... Anyway the text is not very visible.
Now I publish my pictures under a right licence: public domain :)
Thank you for your advices. Plyd 15:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pic 1 is a nice mood pic. The secondone is spoiled by the cloud shadows on the beach and the vegetation. It makes the trees look very dark and the picture a bit unbalanced exposurewise. --Dschwen 08:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xmas in Stuttgart[edit]

Just want to hear some opinions about the two fotos below. Thanks, --Ecelan 10:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Market in Stuttgart 2004. One of the booths
suggest cropping the post out, if considering retaking then get an angle that reduces the number of hanging things. Gnangarra 13:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The dark moon[edit]

  • The dark moon.
    The dark moon.

Okay...I just want some feedback on this. Thanks.--Arjun 04:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. The moon is overexposed and quite blurry. You chose a difficult subject. A really strong telephoto lens is needed to get anything remotely good. --Dschwen 08:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, diccicult subject. See Image:Moon-Mdf-2005.jpg for a professional one. With the given camera I suggest:
  1. Go to manual mode
  2. Choose ISO 400
  3. Choose About f8
  4. Take a Tripod
  5. Adjust exposure in a way the moon isn't overexposed.

You will then get a much better image but still nothing really good. Choose another subject :-) --Ikiwaner 13:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image (Moon-mdf) above is made with a telescope maybe of 800 or 1000 mm focal lenght. It was not just on a tripod it was on an aquatorial mount, which moved the telescope with enough speed to follow the moon. (It is moving) You need just 100 ms or less with 100 ASA to expose right (depends on the used telescope). Then were taken more that ten photos, of which were selected for the best ones and the best 10 photos were digitally stacked to boost the contrast and lessen the graining. You can buy an T2-adaptor for your camera and visit a friend with a telescope in the neighborhood. Then maybe you can do a good shot of the moon. I hope this helps ;-) --SvonHalenbach 17:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, I was going to say that This would be a difficult shot with my Poloroid. :p Arjun 03:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral in Zaragoza[edit]

This is an image of the cathedral of Saragossa in Spain.

The sun was setting and there was a slight fog, giving the place a quite strange atmosphere. Too bad I didn't have a better camera.

Interesting composition the person adds emotion to the image, my only suggestion would be to select the area of the dominant light on the right hand building and reduce brightness by about 15% just to take some of the attention away from it. Gnangarra 13:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Yeah, nice atmosphere! Please do this picture again with a better (Digital) camera. The fog is not important i think. It should be just taken at the same time of day. It is called "the blue hour". But the blue hour is not an hour long. It is just 10 minutes before sunset or after sunrise. When you take the photo, please step one step to the left and use a ladder for a really unusual perspective. Do not tilt the camera upwards, use a wide angle lens instead. When you are at it, don't take just one photo and go. Take photos with different exposure times from the same location. People in the picture are important for the style and to see how big the background is. They should be a bit blurred, because they walk. An exposure time of 1- 2 seconds should take care of that. You can ask a good friend if he or she whants to be your blurred person model ;-) Greetings --SvonHalenbach 18:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fallasburg Bridge Pics[edit]

Interested in thoughts on some of the following, which I was thinking of noming for QI or, dare I say, FP, if they were good enough. I really dig the composition of the first one, the sun/shade patterns below and to the right of the bridge were cool. Taken to support articles being written (the links shold go blue shortly I hope)... of the last two, which truss detail is better? I want to write an article on the Brown truss and need one... I think Whites.

Thanks for advice and feedback. ++Lar: t/c 23:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar! Yeah they are very nice. I personally think the first image is the best as you said. I would defiantly recommend trying out QI as it in my mind/eyes meets the requirements/criterion. Cheers and good luck! Arjun 04:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These images have very good file description and Categorization. The left one is the best. It is perfectly exposed and will illustrate an article well. Resolution is just OK, bigger would be better. Unfortunately sharpness in the corners is very bad. This is due to a very low quality lens. Go for a second hand DSLR you're worth it!
The three detail pictures are overesposed. Turn on the flash and shoot at dusk and it will be OK. --Ikiwaner 14:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback guys, I have nominated the first image at QI as you suggested. I agree about the rest of the comments as well. I needed those pics for the article though, and was a bit rushed. I ended up using the left of the two truss pics in Brown truss ++Lar: t/c 21:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkish clouds[edit]

Hmm...what about this, obviously not very good. Why am I getting such high color noise? I am not in zoom either. Arjun 03:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the noise is odd at ISO 50. But what I also noticed, how did you focus that image? Autofocus will probably not work in the fuzzy clouds. I suppose if you want really low noise pics you'll have to downsample and shoot panos to keep up the resolution. --Dschwen 08:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The noise is clearly caused by the ccd of your camera. Small ccds have noise on almost all light conditions. Use a camera with a bigger ccd (not more pixels but more millimeters). You can make your photos better when you take the same picture three times and mix them together. That reduces the noise too. --SvonHalenbach 12:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSU Sunset[edit]

This is one of the better photos I have taken, but I wanted to know how you think it would fare (or fail) as a featured picture or quality image. Let me know if the over exposure of the sun is a problem, cause I kinda like it and I really like the cracked sidewalk. Also see an alternate Unsigned entry by KyleThayer - Alvesgaspar 11:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

  • This is a nice "contre-jour" picture, I like the silhouettes of the tree and the cyclists. But I don't think it could be featured for the following reasons:
  1. Composition: all that black grass in the first plan, as well as the shadow at right, are not nice. The image would greatly improve with a crop, to remove the lower 1/4 or 1/3.
  2. Lighting: I don't think the overexposure of the sky is a problem, after all this a contre-jour. But the blown highlights in the cars is.
  3. Sharpness: the image is not sharp enough, specially in the background. Look at the cars.
  • Here is an edited version, I cropped it and sharpened it. I tried to run it through Neat Image to remove the grain, but that made the compression fragments really pop out, so I left it a little grainy.

KyleThayer 17:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • sharpened, cropped and now not tilted.
    sharpened, cropped and now not tilted.

Homeless people at the train station[edit]

I particularly like this picture, and I have been waiting for publishing it here because I was wondering whether it could be of any interest for wikicommons. I took it while I was waiting for the train at Brasov train station (Romania), it was about 23:30. It shows two homeless people next to another person waiting for the train like me. The atmosphere was very sad and silent, I took the picture not to forget it. It was very dark, so I had to use the maximum aperture and ISO of my camera (that's why you can see noise zooming it). I have used a quite long exposure time, but the people were so still that they don't look really blurred in the picture. There was a person moving next to them, and that's why he looks blurred. He was not moving quickly, the others were very still... I couldn't get anything better, because I took the photo secretly, using my own legs as a tripod. The result is not great, but it does give the idea of the still and sad atmosphere I was in. I wanted to ask: is this picture worth staying here on Commons? I find it really interesting, but maybe my opinion is just "biased" by my personal experience. Unfortunately the quality is too bad for feature picture, but could it be worth for quality images? it's not very easy to take a picture quickly and secretly at night, with a long exposure time... thanks in advance for your comments :-) Alessio Damato 17:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alessio! First i want you to say, that i find it unethical behavior to make pictures of other people secretly and not even saying that you took a photo of them after you took it. (Sometimes it is ok to take the photo first and ask later, because this way you can capture the atmosphere). I hope you don't think that homeless people have no rights on a photo you took of them. They are clearly identificable. Normally you have to make a contract with people you were using as models. Qualitywise i have to say that you may be right with being biased. Everyone is at first proud of his picture and don't see the flaws, because of being biased. I wish you learn to be more critical with your work. Please let this picture delete from the server and try another subject. Greetings --SvonHalenbach 21:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to be bad. I just thought that showing people in such a condition could make other people more sensible and concerned about it. Anyway, you are right, I should have asked them the permission to publish a picture like this. I have already nominated my picture for speedy deletion. Thanks for your comment. Alessio Damato 17:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the USA, at least, if you are in a public place and there is no specific law against it (army base, George Washington Bridge in NYC,...), you can take a picture of anything or anyone. You can post such a picture wherever you like. If you want to make money off the picture yourself, then you need to get their consent. If you sell the picture to a magazine, the magazine needs to have their consent. Unless it is a newspaper or the like, then there is a journalist exception. Generally, it is nicer and more polite to get permission, but not getting permission is not by itself a bad thing. -- John Van Voorhis 01:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Photography_critiques/January_2007&oldid=203273443"