Commons:Photography critiques/June 2022

Worth trying to apply this photo as QI?

• 

It has been a while since I posted here in Photo critiques, and I'm wondering if other Commons users think this picture I took back in Aprl is worthy of being a QI candidate. All feedback is welcomed! Tet (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

First: All verticals in the pic are severely leaning to the right, this has to be fixed. Size of 3 megapixels is not overwhelming. Colours seem oversaturated. I’d cut off about 200 pixels from the bottom, the dominating uninteresting foreground makes the main subject appear more distant. --Kreuzschnabel 12:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Possible Valued, Featured, Quality, etc?

Hi, I took a few pictures and want to know if any of them could be considered for featured, valued, quality, etc. status? Thanks!

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7

--Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• 1: I don’t see a clear composition here. If it was intended to show the entrance, why is that topic squeezed into the left half of the pic? What is the bright block on the upper right? Might be QI though.
• 2: Pity the lower side of the animal is drowned in shadow. Then, it’s extremely unsharp as if it has been upscaled from a lower resolution (or did you use something called "digital zoom", doing the same thing?). I don’t see much of a chance on QI, and none at all on FP. (That does not mean you’re a poor photographer. It just means this image is not one of the very very best there are on Commons, so there’s still room for improvement!)
• 3. This is sharp at least, but the sharpness is rather on the background fence than on the animal. Autofocus systems do not always guess correctly which object you had in mind to focus. Might be QI though but the animal is rather small, I see no reason to show so much of its surrounding. Try to crop it (at further expense on resolution of course). And don’t upscale it by any means!
• 4. Same unsharpness as #2, maybe even worse. Apart from that, did you notice the tree to "grow out of" the zebra’s back? Issues like this don’t improve composition. Besides that, I’d prefer to pan the camera a bit to the right to get more "leading room" at the head end. The moose in the background makes a nice counterpoint, nicer than the root on the left foreground which is not needed here.
• 5. Your camera set the focus to the log covering the leftmost animal’s feet. This animal is still nearly sharp, the other ones are hardly usable. I can see an idea of composition here, but the feet being covered will prevent a feature (even if it weren’t for the focus issue).
• 6. Unsharp. Simply unsharp. Good idea but something went wrong. Keep it if there’s something personal linked to it, I’d toss it in the bin.
• 7. Same. The only sharp spot of the star is the rightmost tip (or is it called a point, or a corner?). In closeup photography, depth of field is often an issue, and it is here. Nearly impossible to get a closeup image from a simple point-and-shoot camera featured. To get all of it sharp, you either have to stop down the aperture, or do a focus stacking (i.e. take multiple exposures with shifting focus, then compose the sharp areas into the final image).

And when it comes to VI nomination, it depends on the range you would like to set your image in. It has to be the best within a certain range given.

All in all I think you should keep your eyes open for better camera gear. Don’t need to be a full-frame SLR – a used Olympus OM-D (the early ones of 2013 go rather cheap) with a decent lens (or set of) will make your photos leap several levels up in quality.

--Kreuzschnabel 20:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

My brief evaluations: 1. Might be a QI. 3. The goat looks sharp enough, but you'll get objections about slanted pillars at QIC. 4. As Kreuzschnabel said. 5. I'd suggest cropping out the very blurry log in the left foreground if you want to nominate the photo at QIC. It might pass. 6. Blurry even as a thumbnail. 7. Unsharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)