Commons:Photography critiques/January 2019

Images

Hi, I wanted to get peoples opinions:
Are the images below Quality Image or featured pictures quality ?,
If not is there anything I can do to improve the way I take them or is my only option to buy an expensive/better camera? - My current camera is a Nikon Coolpix S2800 if that helps
(FWIW I've just this minute updated camera settings which may see an improvement (or could see a negative impact!)
Thanks, Dave (–Davey2010^Talk) 15:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• 
  Picture 1
• 
  Caption2
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Gallery temporarily hidden due to renaming - will reinstate once files are sorted. –Davey2010^Talk 16:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what settings your camera lets you pick and I can't look at the images in detail from this laptop, but the flaws I can see from here that'd fail on QIC are 1, 3, and 6: blown sky, the picture needs to be taken underexposed (this can almost never be fixed in post) and rebalanced in software. 3, 4, and 6 need a perspective correction (vertical lines should be vertical, easy to do with most software s.a. darktable). On 5 the left of the sign is blurry (can't be fixed in software), it would have to be taken with a smaller aperture (higher f/number) and/or different point of focus. There is often chromatic aberrations (corrupted colors, often purple here, between the sky and land stuff). Your camera has a 1/2.3" sensor (about 25mm^2), it's very limiting but not impossible to pass QIC with it, most current QI's are taken with an APS-C sized sensor (about 370mm^2) --Trougnouf (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Trougnouf, Many many thanks for your comments, My original intent was to simply take with the sky in shot and then crop here (which I've done) however I've found out the quality isn't great (atleast certainly not QI/FI great),

The motion detector is on however I've begun to notice blurryness in my images,

Okie dokie I'll leave QI/FI for now as I feel the camera is what lets me down here,

Many thanks for your criticism/comments it's very much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2010: You'll be surprised at how cheaply you can pick up a DSLR these days. You don't have to spend a lot of money; you can get a Nikon D90 with lens (which is a mid-range camera several generations old), D3200 with lens (which is a slightly newer entry-level camera), or 1st-gen Sony RX100 (premium compact camera with manual controls like a DSLR) for less than £200, and all of these are totally adequate for QIC. FPC might demand slightly higher image quality for easy subjects, but these cameras meet the minimum standard and images taken with them will gain a lot of support if sufficiently impressive. Let me know if you want to spend more and I can give you advice on more expensive cameras as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

this non-wikipedia picture (composition critique)

@Poco a poco, George Chernilevsky, Basotxerri, Ikan Kekek, and Peulle: Critiques for the composition of this image? ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The composition in this picture that is OK and rather ordinary: central, nothing remarkable and no errors. Overall, a good image. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Per George. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree, too centered, too narrow crop, a good image to illustrate a Wikipedia article but if you are wondering whether I would support it as FP, my answer is no, it lacks something and the lighting is not great, either. Poco² 09:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Well-shot bird, very bright light. Probably a QI, but even that isn't certain because of the light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this an FP?

I really like this photo, but because complaints about shadows often sink FP noms, I thought I'd run it past you all here before I more seriously considered nominating it:

Wat Saphan Hin

Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Ikan Kekek: sorry, missed this one. Seems okay to me. Not exactly outstanding but still an FP. Shadows don't seem to be to bothering. Btw what's Template:Clear? ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. Someone else probably put that in. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

→ answer to this --El Grafo (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• What I find a bit strange is that the pillars look like they are leaning out at the top rather than inwards. The latter could be expected due to the perspective. Looks over-corrected to me. Apart from that it looks technically better than most of the images you can find on Google, but the composition so very much staight-forward that I'm tempted to call it "boring". The shadows are fine for me though. It would probably not get a support from me, over-all. --El Grafo (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed appraisal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Potential FPs?

I've been sitting on a bunch of images for a while, unsure if I should bother with FPC. Would love some feedback here (either a definitive yes/no, or ideas for improvement).

• 
  Old man cactus. (alternative)
• 
  Last year's Women's March. Oh how I wish the mom were looking forward and not on her phone...
• 
  From a Comme des Garcons show at The Met. I like the set, the composition... but it's not as sharp as it could be/should be. Nominated
• 
  Corpse flower (alternative 1, alternative2)
• 
  Dahlia cultivar
• 
  Dragon dancers after a Lunar New Year parade (also)
• 
  Great blue heron on a torii (alternative)
• 
  Land Rover on a central hill in Mitzpe Ramon. Pretty noisy, but a nice scene.
• 
  alternative1
• 
  Cosplayer at New York Comic Con -- background is cluttered, but the event is clear and it does a pretty good job of reproducing the feel of the event
• 
  Starling at a birdhouse Nominated
• 
  Coney Island Mermaid Parade (alternative, also)
• 
  National School Walkout Rally against gun violence (alternative, also)
• 
  Oculus panorama (WTC station Oculus, NYC) (alternative, also1, also2)
• 
  Western coneflower (also a couple others flowers here and here Nominated
• 
  Turkey vulture

I don't know, maybe by putting a bunch up here I risk this getting less attention than if I just posted one; I guess we'll find out. Thanks for your patience. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  05:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: IMHO only the Western Coneflower could possibly be an FP. The others are too unsharp. I'd give the coneflower picture a solid support if you nominated it. Cheers. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 05:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm surprised to see that you found all of the others to be unsharp. There may be other problems, but the e.g. vulture, starling, cactus, etc. don't seem like sharpness would be a big issue? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Entschuldigung, missed your reply. Clarification: I meant out of all the botanical shots. Sorry for the inconvenience! ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 05:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I like File:Comme des Garcons at the Met (62473).jpg. The dalia is also nice. File:Turkey vultures (01731).jpg would be OK with a crop at the bottom. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: See my note for a suggested crop. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Yann. I'm going to open it up again in Lightroom and may nominate it soon. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: Uploaded a new version (crop, but also a bit of a perspective adjustment, tweak the denoising, etc.), and nominated. Thanks for the help. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I started adding/removing images above in addition to updating their status, but that seems potentially obnoxious to occupy so much space on this page for so long. Instead, I just started a section on my talk page that I plan on keeping updated. We'll see if anyone else looks, I guess. :) Thanks for the comments all, after this post the bot can just archive this. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)