Commons:Photography critiques/July 2017

File:SteelDetail(2D-Truss).pdf

File:SteelDetail(2D-Truss).pdf

• 
  PDF (better quality than the SVG)
• 
  SVG (therefore difficult to print in scale)
• 
  the Truss of the Details
• 
  the plan with the details marked

File:Stahldetail_JoKalliauer.svg

I would like to nominate this picture for Wikipedia:Featured_pictures. The Jpg-Artefakts are just from the WikipediaRenderer so please take a look at the sourcefile: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/SteelDetail%282D-Truss%29.pdf

There is also a svg-Version available (File:Stahldetail_JoKalliauer.svg), which is in my opinion the wrong format because PDFs can be printed in scale, for SVG's it's difficult and the SVG has lower quality (also it looks nicer in Wikpedia), since it is derived from the PDF.

This Part is a Part of a this [[:|plan]], where the source file can be found on commonsarchive as an autocadDraWinG, or as DataeXchangeFormat.

Those Details are Details of this truss, and the Details are marked in this plan of this truss.

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 11:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

What do you consider wowing about these plans? I'm not seeing an FP here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@JoKalliauer: as Ikan Kekek pointed out above, Featured Pictures at Commons require some kind of "Wow-effect". The different Wikipedia versions of FP (e.g. en:WP:FP or de:WP:EB) have different rules/requirements I am not really familiar with. I think some of them value educational value much more than we do at Commons FP, but often require an image to be in actual use in an article. In any case, you should probably give a much more detailed description, something like "Fachwerkplan" alone would probably not be considered sufficient. Concerning your considerations about file formats etc., please note that this page is intended for critiques of photographic works and not really the best place for drawings. I'd recommend to go to the Graphics village pump or Graphics lab for input on this. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@El Grafo: Thank you very much, that feedback really helps me. :-)

This section was archived on a request by:  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 22:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Butterfly 06821.JPG

Eurema hecabe

I saw this photo in QIC. Does it look like an FP to you? Seems to me like it could be, but having just had a less than thrilling experience nominating another insect photo by Vengolis at FPC, I thought I'd ask here first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I find predicting FPC baffling. For this photo the one area I see that might maybe be a problem is the bright sun on the camera left side of the butterfly, especially around the head and torso. Perhaps try cutting the exposure there a little. Just my 2 cents. PumpkinSky talk 21:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Vengolis, what do you think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek I don't consider myself a good photographer or expert in this field. I have to admit that quality of my images are no where near the quality of FP's of by Charlesjsharpor Jkadavoor.But I would like to hear what others think about my photo.Thanks for your review PumpkinSky -Vengolis (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Vengolis is indeed made a lot of good works and he is using same camera and lens as of me. The difference is, he shoots direct jpgs. Nowadays it is very difficult to get FP level quality from straight out of camera. The quality will improve dramatically if can shoot RAW and post process. CaptureOne Express is free for Sony RAW files. (In this butterfly, light is not good and the butterfly has its fore-wing improperly developed. I like this dragonfly photo except the flash reflection on the leaf.) Jee 03:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This is an OK QI, but is not sharp enough for FP. And the lighting is not well chosen. But what went wrong technically? I suspect the shutter speed is too low or the focus point is not set properly. That can be checked. I can't work out if the picture was taken auto-focus or manual focus. If manual focus was used then it is possible eyepiece is not adjusted correctly. If auto focus was used then it is possible camera is not set up correctly. I try to shoot at 1/500 hand held when I don't have much time. I don't get good results at 1/200 when I'm crouching down on the ground. I don't know how good the lens is, but Jee manages to shoot super images with it, though as we've discussed, I think 1/500 daylight gives images with more definition than 1/250 flash. The results with this lens/body are unfortunately not going to be as good as my expensive Canon 100mm Macro lens/70D crop sensor body and all my lenses have Image Stabilization.
It's interesting that everyone talks about RAW. I do shoot RAW, but actually process from JPG* most of the time using Photoshop CS6. I've sent my RAW files to a couple of Wikipedia's FP processing experts, but haven't been wowed by their efforts. But I keep the RAW files in case I learn how to do better! * You have to stop the camera doing any noise reduction etc.Charles (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much to everyone for your comments in this thread. Vengolis, I think you are a very good photographer, but I hope the very specific remarks upthread are of use to you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion

This is looking down a canal in burano.

I would like some advice on this photo, and perhaps a comment relating on its chances for a FP/something else. Thanks in advance, Anish Mariathasan (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Anish Mariathasan: The scene certainly has some potential, but the lower right corner will almost certainly prevent it from becoming a FP or QI – looks like a finger in front of the lens? VI would require geocoding, a better description, more specific categorization into the appropriate sub-category of Category:Canals in Burano and no other picture of this subject being more useful (which I can't judge right now as I don't know which canal it is showing). There are also some blown out highlights on the bright surfaces of the boats. If your camera allows you to set an exposure compensation, something like -1 EV might help to prevent this for similar scenes in the future. Moving one or two steps to the right could have brought you a more balanced/symmetrical composition. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice El Grafo. Yes, the finger obstruction wasn't in another photo - I took 2. I was wondering whether you could give me some extra advice on how to improve these photos, and as to which is better (apologies for the low resolution in the sunset in venice). Thanks, Anish Mariathasan (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

identify Mercedes-Benz

This old MB needs a Category:Mercedes-Benz vehicles by type. Or send me please to appropriate Commons:Object identification requests page

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

--aimaina hikari (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Аимаина хикари: We don't really have a dedicated place for that at Commons, but it's not uncommon to post stuff like this on the main Village Pump. Another option is to put them into Category:Unidentified Mercedes-Benz automobiles and just wait until some expert comes along and moves them to the correct type category. --El Grafo (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks, Category:Unidentified Mercedes-Benz automobiles added --aimaina hikari (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

My photograph

I have recently uploaded a picture of a flower

File:Iris(in the garden)

.Please critique the picture .I want to take better pictures of flowers later onForceradical (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It has a dust spot on upper left side, the aperture at 5.6 gets a very small deep of field only a small part of the flower is sharp, aparently it has motion blur too, IMO there is too much background on the left producing a unbalanced composition, regards --Cvmontuy (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC).

File:2016 Prowincja Krabi, Ko Lanta Yai, Plaża Klong Khong (29).jpg

A Krabi sunset

I really like this composition and photo, but do you think it's special enough for an FP nomination or not? I thought I'd ask here first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess not? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• It's a nice photo, but the FP criteria specifically says, """almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others""". To me, this just doesn't seem special enough. dllu (t,c) 18:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Understood, and yes, I am well aware of that criterion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)