Commons:Photography critiques/June 2018

Is this a good bird picture?

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

@Daniel Case: @Basile Morin: @Ikan Kekek: @Peulle: Please, could you four help review my image? I look forward to hearing some constructive criticism from COM members I look up to! GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

- Do you think the last four pictures are of good enough quality to be nominated for COM:VIC? GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

VIC would have to do with whether the pictures are best in scope. In other words, that would have to be the best yellow-vented bulbul picture on Commons, one of the American white pelican pictures would have to be the best on Commons, etc. I'll have a look with a mind toward QIC, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, in my opinion, the bulbul pic is probably not a QI. I think the bird is too small a percentage of the photo and that its feathers don't have enough definition, especially in the highlights. I like File:American white pelican.jpg a lot more. I like the composition, though someone might complain that there should be more lead room in front of it. If people pixel-peep, they may complain about color noise. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

File:American white pelican 2.jpg has blown highlights. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The last two photos look like QIs to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: Thank you! Is there any way I could reduce the color noise of File:American white pelican.jpg? Also, if I nominated the last two, would you support it? :P GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Should I nominate File:American white pelican.jpg for QI or VI, or neither? GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Ikan. The quality of the 2 last ones is okay, but the crops are not very nice (not well centered). The first image is too noisy. The second one is not sharp. And the 3rd one is overexposed -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Currently none of them is fit for VI, as they all fail criterion 5 (= lack of Commons:Geocoding). --El Grafo (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

* @El Grafo: My camera doesn't have a geocoding feature, is there any way I could add that with external software? GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@GerifalteDelSabana: Yep, there are several methods for doing that. Try Commons:Locator-tool, for example. Commons:Geocoding has some more options available … --El Grafo (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• My opinion from left to right: Image 1 could be a QI. I've seen worse being promoted in the past and given the resolution and distance I'd probably vote in favour of it. Image 2 could be a VI contender (but I think there may be some images in the category with a better angle) but looks too unsharp for a QI. Image 3 is too bright - the highlights are almost if not completely blown. Image 4 could be a QI, especially since the head and neck are sharp. You might want to consider cropping some of the top. Image 5 is a QI, although check for CA.--Peulle (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Peulle: Thanks for the feedback! I've also noticed the purple fringes, and I've been doing some research on how to remove them. Sadly I don't have a UV filter yet (costs $50 here), would take some time for me to save up. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

A program like PhotoShop can remove them in camera raw by using the "remove chromatic aberrations" feature. I'm sure some other software programs have that too.--Peulle (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Peulle: I've cropped the 2nd last image. What do you think? GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It passes QIC, I think.--Peulle (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment - I couldn't advise you on how to reduce color noise, but I'm sure other folks will have advice for you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey GerifalteDelSabana, I just came across this discussion and as an avid bird photographer myself I'd like to offer you a piece of advice that helped me taking better bird pictures. Please consider getting lower to the ground when taking pictures of water birds. I've described the reasons for why this will improve images in a blog post. I hope you don't mind me joining this conversation and I wish you all the best of luck for your future pictures. All the best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

* @Frank Schulenburg: Thank you for the suggestion! Unfortunately, the place was a wildlife conservatory and I was the lowest I could get! I'll try to get a better angle if I ever get the chance to visit a non-barricaded location. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Update - Nominated the cropped version of the 2nd picture for QIC. @Basile Morin: @Ikan Kekek: @Peulle: @El Grafo: GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

* The image passed QIC, what can I do to bring it to FP-level? @Ikan Kekek: @Peulle: GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion: nothing. That image is as good as it's going to get. FP is not just about technical quality either, but about the personal opinions of the reviewers re whether they feel it has enough of a "wow factor". I'd just try to nominate it and see what happens. Maybe you'll get some more feedback.--Peulle (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Peulle: . You've been of great help. I'll do it when I get home. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible FP?

View of the central structure of Angkor Wat

I really love this composition, but I'm unsure whether to nominate it to FPC and thought I'd ask for some reactions here, first. I think the strengths of the photo are obvious, but I could see objections to the degree of sharpness, considering the moderate size of the photo (it's not small but not huge), and some people might object to the people in the photo, especially the woman taking a cell phone pic of another woman in the center of the photo. So what do you think - worth nominating at FPC or not? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Beautiful image, but of course the main subject is these ladies taking pictures of themselves. So, is it a nice feature ? IMO no, these people ruin the beautiful landscape, unfortunately. They don't bring anything interesting, just they're here while they shouldn't (I mean for us). I wouldn't support as FP but perhaps other reviewers will find something special. I think these women could have been welcome if they were doing something different than shooting with their camera. Here their action is disturbing -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for giving your take on the photo. It's a pity that the presence of people at such a major tourist attraction might mean that it's impossible for there to be an FP of this view. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• You could always try to nominate it and see if there is a consensus. Sometimes I see people disagree with what I thought was an acceptable QI/FP level.--Peulle (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• @Ikan Kekek: I guess the "problem" is that this one is an architecture image with "disturbing" people. The exact same scene could work very differently, had it been photographed as a portrait of 2 people with an interesting background. Longer focal length, tighter framing, more "compression" … But anyway, I also think it might be worth a try. I I'm not sure I would support, but I probably would not oppose this one at FPC. --El Grafo (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. I will think about it. I appreciate your thoughts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Two more bird pictures, one more opportunity to improve and learn!

• 
• 

@Basile Morin: @Ikan Kekek: @Peulle:

Here's another two more pictures, possible FPC/QIC? Anything I could improve on?

_{If I'm too annoying, tell me, I'll stop tagging you.}

GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Charlesjsharp: Could you give some feedback please? 😂 GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• The execution of the photos are fine, but I'm afraid you'll never get a QI with 1/4000 sec and ISO 6400. You need to wait for a sunny day at take at say ISO 800 max otherwise the photos are too grainy. 1/4000 sec should oonly be for flying animals. Choose, say, 1/800 sec on a windy day and try for F8 for a good depth of field. Get the light over your shoulder so sunlight is falling on the bird's feathers. Wait till the bird is in profile and focus the camera on the eye. Ideally you want to be at the same elevation as the bird - not looking up and no looking down. Try to get close enough sto avois much cropping. Background should be natural, so the metal netting or whatever it is ruins the first image. For VI these days you need to identify subspecies, but your sparrow wouldn't make it I'm afraid. Best wishes, Charles

•  Comment I don't think they'll succeed at FP because the light is fairly ordinary and the birds aren't doing anything special (birds in flight are more exciting). I do think they are QI quality, though, since the resolution is high and the sharpness is pretty good. The left especially I'd promote right away. The sparrow pic is a bit noisy so that might be improved with a little bit of noise reduction.--Peulle (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

-@Peulle: What kind of noise? Color noise or luminance noise? GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Normal light noise, yes.--Peulle (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

- How about VI for the right picture? The current one is quite low-res. (original picture is slightly out of focus too.) GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter; VI is about which picture displays best as a thumbnail in articles, so the current one is better.--Peulle (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment - I disagree on the photo on the left. I think it's not sharp enough for QI. Because the sparrow is a smaller bird, I think it might be a QI, but I'm not sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

MG B GT

Slightly disappointed with the result of this car photo I took. It didn't help it began raining in mid process and my hair got blown in my face. (Drawback of having long hair). I'm not particularly sure if it did came out blurry or not. I photograph it in a way so it could be promoted to QI but I'm doubtful if it sufficient to be one. I tried to fix the problem and just end up making the image too sharp. What do you think? --Vauxford (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a QI regular, so I'm not sure about the requirements on sharpness there. Doesn't look too bad to me though. However, you'll probably want to give it a bit of a counter-clockwise rotation to get the fence in the background stand up straight. --El Grafo (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible QI/VI?

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Any thoughts on my pictures? Are there any unsightly JPEG artifacts? Would the first four pictures pass QI? And the last one for VI in the scope of "Head of a Rainbow Lorikeet" (of course I'll complete the information and geotag it before I nominate it)? @Peulle: @Ikan Kekek: @Llez: @Archaeodontosaurus: GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment I make you the critic of your first image. As soon as we pass it to the analysis of CameraRaw we see that the bird is too black (2/3) and was impossible to recover below there are chromatic anomalies with magenta that does not exist on the bird and especially a lot of noise. Looking at Exifs we see that if f5.6 is good you should have done with 200 or 400 Iso and you would have had a time of laying around 1/80 or 1/60 which is good if you do not move. I do not advise to touch the gain control that you put for your device on "strong positive". Leave it normal and you can rework it with CameraRaw or another software afterwards.

Work your camera outfit; you have to be able to make perfect pictures at 1/40, this is where you can progress the most.

Make only RAW images and rework them. You have a good machine

For the head of the bird you chose the difficulty the three quarter facing face requires a great depth of field, and a lot of light. Obviously you did not have much if I believe exifs. The simplest is the profile where your depth of field will be low.

Before placing an image in VI look what has already been done as by Example: Rainbow Lorikeet MacMasters.jpg

You're right to ask that's how we progress. Your requests will always be welcomed --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible VI in the scope of "Puffed up adult Spilopelia chinensis (Spotted dove)"

• 

I personally think that it is a good picture; the other ones in the scope have either too many JPEG artifacts or too much noise, and in the case of one that is FP on the malayalam wiki, is out of focus.

GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Peulle: @Ikan Kekek: @Llez: Any thoughts? GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Compared to other images from the category it looks like just got out of bed with the feathers ruffled up like that. I don't think I'd support this at VI. --El Grafo (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)