Commons:Photography critiques
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 90 days. |
Graphics community: Graphic Lab · Graphics Village Pump · Picture Requests · Photography Critiques · Photography terms
Welcome to the Photography critiques!
Would you like a second opinion before nominating a photograph of yours as a Quality Image, Valued Image or Featured Picture candidate, can't decide which of your images to enter into one of the Photo Challenges? Or do you have specific questions about how to improve your photography or just would like some general feedback?
This is the right page to gather other people's opinions!
If you want general suggestions to a good photo, you can ask here, and we already wrote guidelines.
If you don't get some terminology used here, don't be shy you can ask about it, or read
Please insert new entries at the bottom, and comment on oldest entries first.
To prevent archiving use {{subst:DNAU}}, because SpBot archives all sections after 90 days, unless archiving has been postponed or suppressed through the use of {{subst:DNAU}}. You can ask the bot to archive a section earlier by using {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} – then it will be archived after 7 days.
Photo des Tages 08.04.2025
[edit]Bei der Beschreibung des Photos ist in der Beschreibung ein Rechtschreibfehler . . . es muss "aalartig" heißen, nicht allartig. tö Pentaclebreaker (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
- Offenbar mittlerweile korrigiert... Seems to be correct now... R. J. Mathar (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Why do some images get promoted at QIC but others not?
[edit]_(10_April_2025)_20.jpg)
.jpg)
I understand there's some randomness in the process but if I could better predict which of my nominations will be successful it would make it more efficient. Curious if anyone here cares to weigh in on why the left image passed but the right image did not. If I were reviewing I would if anything have been more likely to promote the blue-sky image. Buidhe (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't know why the picture on the left got the QI award. Both images lack the image description, both have similar technical flaws, although not really bad ones. Smial (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- Smial what technical flaws are you seeing? I'd love to know what I could do to improve my photography short of buying a new camera. Buidhe (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: sadly, cell phone cameras can have many pixels, but always have a miniscule image sensor size. This leads to irrectifiably muddied images. Used DSLRs are only a few hundred dollars, which is less than your phone. JayCubby (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- The main reason that I don't want to use a separate camera is that it's extra dead weight if I'm climbing a big mountain. I understand that a proper camera does give better image quality. Buidhe (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: sadly, cell phone cameras can have many pixels, but always have a miniscule image sensor size. This leads to irrectifiably muddied images. Used DSLRs are only a few hundred dollars, which is less than your phone. JayCubby (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Smial what technical flaws are you seeing? I'd love to know what I could do to improve my photography short of buying a new camera. Buidhe (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
What I should have done to improve File:Looking across frozen Carter Pond toward cabin shelter, Rock House Reservation.jpg?
[edit]
I got feedback from Quality Images Candidates that this image was "Not sharp, CA's on branches". Which, sure, I can see how it's not that sharp, and looking at it again I can see how it's not really "Quality". I'm still trying to wrap my head around CA, and what should be done about it beyond whatever Canon's Digital Photo Professional tool does by default with its lens data. And what should have been done to make it more "sharp"? I'm guessing it should be more than just fiddling around with the "sharpness" parameters? Did I just need to have used a smaller aperture and there's not really more that can be done for this particular photo? I'm still very new to this. Thanks for any guidance you can give me on what I should be reading up on next. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- I would suggest taking pictures with different settings on your camera to try to improve focus and sharpness throughout your results. Trying different settings will help you choose the right ones for different lenses, different light conditions, different distance from subjects, etc. I often have to shoot dozens, if not hundreds of photos, to find just one that's great. E bailey (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
What can be improved when taking photos of this specific controller?
[edit].webp)
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
--Trade (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- What do you actually mean with "can be improved", Trade? If you want to ask what can be done with software on those given examples: noting much, as far as I'm aware.
- The main issue is a harsh lighting, caused by the use of a (most likely built-in) flash, can't tell, the WEBP files lack EXIF (that a flash was fired is certain, though). It causes prominent shadows and a distracting reflection. This could easily be fixed, but only while taking the images, not after the fact.
- You should make this kind of tabletop photography (-> en:Still life photography / German: de:Tabletop-Fotografie, Category:Tabletop photography) in a well-lit room, use a neutral backdrop (like a LARGE and clean sheet of paper or fabric, avoid patterned wood, for instance), use a tripod and trigger the shutter either by a remote or by using a timed shutter. A flash should not by fired directly onto the subject, but only bounced from (white or bright) walls and ceilings - NB. if the walls are painted in some colour, you'll get colour tinges. If your room doubling as photostudio is lit with lamps giving off a rather warm light, meaning anything between 3800k and 5800k, you can dispense from using a flash completely and simply use a long exposure (a tripod is imperative in this case). Fluorescent lamps are mostly too blueish for decent stills, especially as they flicker with the grid frequency. Incandescent or LED lamps are better. If you want to use flashes as way to set some lighting accents, you could either use a true en:softbox, or fix some (white) tissue paper in front of your flash as improvised "poor-man's" softbox, to avoid harsh shadows. Last but not least, if you can control your camera / DSLR while tethered via USB or wirelessly to your computer (the Canon EOS series of digital cameras can be used that way using the Canon software, with a liveview display on your PC screen), use that for setting the lighting and focus in the exact way you want. In fact, there are a zillion ways to use and to play with technology for greater pictures, experiment yourself if you fancy this hobby. :-) Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- I dont think most of this applies to phone photographs? Trade (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Timed shutter, long exposures in manual mode and (Bluetooth-based) remote triggers,like those in selfie sticks, are often available in smartphone camera apps, too. And there are also tripods to hold phones. The advice for a uniform, neutral or warm lighting and a neutral backdrop is also valid. Only the parts about softboxes and flashes are only applicable when you're using dedicated cameras. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- I dont think most of this applies to phone photographs? Trade (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)