Commons:Photography critiques/July 2022

What's the issue?

• 
  Repairs of Saint-Antoine l'Abbaye church, June 2022

Hi, This was twice nominated for QI, and still not reviewed. What's the issue? Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• It hasn’t been declined either, it’s still waiting for review. Be patient – nominating twice (resulting in two open nominations) does not help. The review process is being done by volunteers in their spare time as well. So far, nobody seems to be overwhelmed by your pic. --Kreuzschnabel 17:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• It was renominated after the first one was archived, so not two open nominations. Thanks for your comment, Yann (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The right side is not straight. It also looks a bit blurry, I think that f/6.3 is not ideal and F should be higher to make everything in focus. Podzemnik (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Compared to other images of this place, I find the colors here better: lighter new yellow stone rather than old grey stone resulting in warmer colors. But for other pictures, I could use a tripod. Here workers were still working on it, so I couldn't. Yann (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, sometimes the conditions are not right to capture a QI. The photo can still be very useful without QI status too. Podzemnik (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• The main problem seems to me to be the mixed light. --Smial (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Are these images qualified for QI?

I'm rather new towards photography and I've been trying to sharpen my skills. I've taken a load of photographs over the course of a few days, and I've gathered a number of photographs which I deemed to be satisfactory, for me at least. I wondered, are these photographs eligible for QI?

• 
  Central Bank of Malaysia, Penang Branch.
• 
  Lim Lean Teng Mansions.
• 
  Malayan Railway Building.
• 
  Church Street, George Town.
• 
  Beach Street, George Town.
• 
  Beach Street, George Town (alternative).

Thanks in advance. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment I would not support the images. All images show blurring noise reduction combined with sharpening artifacts. --Smial (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the comments. PenangLion (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment I haven’t looked at all of them, but as for #1, you just cannot hide it was a phone cam. There’s this "watercolour look" on the details, caused by heavy noise reduction applied automatically. #4 is unsharp and has been sharpened digitally, making those bright seams along all edges. Leaning-in verticals (caused by pointing the camera upwards, can be corrected afterwards on the expense of resolution) are a minus. --Kreuzschnabel 06:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the comment. PenangLion (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Good enough or is retake necessary

Hello, I have access to $3,000 pump for some time and I figured I could photograph it while it's in my office. I took a picture of it on my floor, but I could take another picture of it on a drafting table (dirty, light green background). Would that be better?

• 
  Steam powered sump pump

Ivangiesen (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

My non-expert take is it would be better on the table, or some backdrop that's a different color from what you're photographing. I'd also try for softer light if possible because there are some areas on the pump that look "burned". Buidhe (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

If possible, try taking some pictures with different lights without moving the camera (it can be hard when using a phone, though), so that some HDR magic can be applied later. You may also have better luck with paper background. - Gabuxae (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, the photographed pump could look better if a solid monochromatic background in a neutral color was used. When photographing it, you could put a sheet of such material under it. PawełMM (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this an FP or a type of fakery?

Tropaeum Traiani

This photo won the 1st prize for Romania's Wiki Loves Monuments in 2014. I think it's quite beautiful, but is it an undeclared composite of 2-3 images? I feel like, if there were enough moonlight to light the monument that much and/or if it were only dusk, there's no way we could see all those stars. So how should this be handled? Is it a legitimate enough photo that it should indeed be a QI and would merit nomination at FPC, or it is a bit of artifice that produced beautiful results but could never actually look this way in person? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The image is heavily processed (normal for QI) but I'd say it's not collage. Probably some careful color correction - Photoshop even helpfully listed some curve settings in metadata. Just critique - there are also too much noise (maybe artificial, maybe side effect of long exposure at night, maybe uncorrected after raw import) and clearly visible CA. - Gabuxae (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, so not an FP, anyway. Thanks for your analysis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The rather strong noise is typical for the camera used. I wouldn't try to reduce noise and, if anything, do it only on the original, not the uploaded JPG. Tinkering with the JPG would only result in one thing: tinkering. In an area that is only slightly affected by light pollution, it is quite conceivable that the photo was taken exactly like this in very bright moonlight. However, there are other light sources, perhaps streetlights behind the camera. --Smial (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you think of the photo? Are you seeing CA, too? I do like the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting picture, but in my opinion too many technical flaws, both for FPC and QIC. But with FPC sometimes miracles happen, when a picture finds enough enthusiastic "wow"-effect followers ;-) --Smial (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It did pass at QIC. I recognize that not every photo I like would pass at FPC. Thanks again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The interpretation of the rules at QIC is often very... individual. There is nothing you can do about it. Nevertheless, I often write very detailed reasons for CRs in the hope that others will be able to understand them. The annoying thing is when you are simply outvoted without any further argumentation. --Smial (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

We could try to require explanations for support votes in CR, I suppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That would lead to commonplace explanations like "quality is sufficient". Seeing that on low-quality nominations is why the green badge somehow lost its meaning for me. --Kreuzschnabel 06:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The green badge has pretty much lost all meaning to me because it discriminates against images from external sources. El Grafo (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to add that it is in principle possible to create an shot like this in a single long exposure shot with artificial lighting on the main subject. Example on Youtube. El Grafo (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)