Commons:Photography critiques/October 2021

Just want some critique!

Hi! I overall just want your opinion on the following photographs. I'm thinking of putting the following up for quality images.

• 
• 
• 
• 

--Lectrician2 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

Hi Lectrician2, here you have a first assessment of your drone photos.

• First photo: good composition, but the sky is overexposed to the point of appearing totally white (we say "blown" in photography). The easiest way to avoid a blown overcast sky is to underexpose the photo and bring the light back in the digital lab.
• Second photo: uninteresting composition, with all those white roofs in the foreground. The photo is overexposed making those roofs almost totally white.
• Third photo: the best of the three in terms of composition. You should correct the slight ccw tilt. Also, there is some visible noise owing to the relatively poor quality of the drone camera.
• Fourth photo: poor framing, due to the uninteresting roof in the foreground.

Two final comments: take your time to carefully choose the framing and composition. Pay attention to the lighting conditions: with an overcast sky, set the camera to correctly expose the subject (yes, it may be difficult with a drone). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

unknown

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawnmower500 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lawnmower500, here is the assessment to your picture: Two problems causing an overall poor quality of the image:

• White balance is incorrectly set, making the image bluish. This is not supposed to happen with your camera, if the white balance is set to automatics (unless it was manipulated in the digital lab);
• The image is tilted.
• Some parts are overexposed, appearing as almost totally white.
• Image is not sharp enough. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this a likely FP?

This is an example of an older building being completely overwhelmed by taller modern buildings behind it, but the building immediately behind it has quite interesting architecture, in my opinion, with the steps on top on both sides, so I find the composition very intriguing. The drawbacks are the gray sky and the mild-to-moderate degree of noise at full size. I'd love to have someone's views before I consider whether to nominate the photo at FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Ikan Kekek, this is definitely a serious candidate for FP, because of its impressive composition. Yes, I agree those are weak points working against promotion but I believe they can be minimized. Two further issues deserve attention: i) the washed-out colours of the whole picture, which is a result of the poor lighting conditions. This can be corrected in the digital lab by slightly manipulating saturation and contrast; ii) the effect of the perspective correction on the cars and people, which are vertically compressed. This can be easily corrected by reducing the image size horizontally (better than increasing vertically). I hope this helps. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your critiques, Alvesgaspar. Would you like to work on these things, Maksimsokolov? It would be nice for this photo to be able to be an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Alvesgaspar and Ikan Kekek, I appreciate your insight. I tried to address your concerns and made several corrections. In my view, this is the limit this photo can be corrected, and more interference will cause it to look unnatural. --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 15:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I could try a nomination and see what opinions it receives. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Just my final 2 cents. This one of those cases when fully correcting the verticals might not be necessary or adequate. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

File:CN Tower from AGO (daytime).jpg - QI

Toronto's CN Tower, viewed from the Art Gallery of Ontario on a sunny day

Hey, I was hoping to get some opinions on this image as a possible QI candidate, as well as any suggestions for improvements. Thanks in advance! —oscitare (he/him, il/lui; talk) 06:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC).

• Hi Oscitare, I believe this can be a successful QI candidate. But I would first try to improve composition, by removing those uninteresting trees in the foreground, and sharpen the image, which is a bit soft. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Phone cameras are limited by their very tiny lens, regardless of their megapixel figure. It’s just technically impossible to get optical resolution on micrometer level with a small aperture of 1-2 millimetres compared to an SLR lens and sensor of much larger size. You can clearly see that in the tree foliage looking rather like a watercolour painting than a photograph, the single leaves having melted into larger areas of unique colour. The devices try to make up for this by severe digital processing, sharpening edges, brightening up shadows and reducing noise, killing even more detail. It’s a pity here because the scene is really fine, and the photographer has a good sense of composition. This image definitely deserves a better equipment. I would have taken it in landscape orientation to get more of the skyline instead of the foreground trees. --Kreuzschnabel 10:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)