Commons:Photography critiques

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose oldest comment is older than 90 days.

Graphics community: Graphic Lab · Graphics Village Pump · Picture Requests · Photography Critiques

Welcome to the Photography critiques!

Commons discussion pages (index)

Commons Help desk Community-wide general discussion Copyright Proposals Graphics and photography discussion Image improvement Photography critiques Categories for discussion Deletion requests OTRS noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests #wikimedia-commons webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator

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 Callenges? 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!

Start a new topic

---

If you want general suggestions to a good photo, you can ask here, and we already wrote guidelines.

See image guidelines >>

If you don't get some terminology used here, don't be shy you can ask about it, or read

See photography terms >>

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.

---

2006: October, November, December 2007: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2008: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2009: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2010: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2011: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2012: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2013: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2014: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2015: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2016: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2017: January, February, March, April, May, June, July

File:Panorama of AT&T Park at night.jpg

Panorama of a baseball stadium in San Francisco.

I painstakingly took this panorama on a midnight photo walk on Sunday, equipped with an adapted manual 50mm f/2.6 lens. The panorama consists of 42 frames (3 exposures, 2 rows of 7 portrait frames). What do people think of the composition? Should I clone out the lens flares (they are real lens flares due to extremely bright floodlights), or should I reshoot this with my Zeiss lens with much better coatings and flare resistance? dllu (t,c) 09:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dllu: nice one, it's obvious you put a lot of work into this! FPC candidate for me if you can get rid of the flares: Lens flare can of course be used as a stylistic device, but in this case I find those large blue blotches on the right pretty disturbing. They look like some kind of artefact and are not even easily recognized for what they are. Same for the purple spots, though I must admit that I find that large UFO-like one on the left kind of funny ;-). I like the composition, if anything the rocks in the foreground might be a tad too dominant (or maybe not, I didn't try cropping). "50mm f/2.6" sounds like a macro lens? Certainly delivers in terms of sharpness. The streaks are interesting, without the description I would have guessed for bats hunting for insects attracted to the floodlights. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks! I'll clone out the flares when I have time. The lens used was a Myutron FV5026W-F that is supposedly optimized for infinity focus and it is quite sharp. It's also useful for panoramas since it has very little distortion, no vignetting whatsoever, and has a set screw that can keep the aperture and focus ring fixed. Flaring is a severe drawback of this lens though, since it was designed for machine vision applications with controlled lighting. dllu (t,c) 20:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the lens flare, you can try one of the following when shooting: if the lens flare moves, try several photos pointing the camera in different directions. Take some photos and block the bright light source(s) shining onto your lens, with your hand or otherwise. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

QI nomination

I have 10 photos that i don´t know if they are worhty to a QI nomination. Any advice? Thanks. Vanbasten 23 (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

@Vanbasten 23: IMHO, the best ones are Lläut y competición.jpg and Bakar, Croacia.jpg. Lläut bancadas.jpg suffers from all the people in the background; in Lläut tolete 03.jpg the bolt is blurry, and in Lläut vista.jpg the boat is chopped off and blurry in the front. PumpkinSky talk 21:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@PumpkinSky: I really liked your opinion very much. Thank you very much for the contribution. ;) Vanbasten 23 (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Starting at zero

click to enlarge

newer and maybe improved version

I have uploaded this completely unprocessed image for input on what I can do with similar images to make them better and potentially FP or at least QI quality. I also want to learn how to make the best of what equipment and skill I have. I'm guessing this particular image is not ever going to be FP quality (even I think it's a bit boring), but it's here for me to learn from in terms of cropping, post-processing image enhancement, and what "operator errors" I made with the camera settings. I provided more info on the image, above and beyond the EXIF data, at File talk:Grazing Montana Horses.jpg and would welcome more in-depth discussion there, if it would be convenient. At present, my limitations are: 1) I'm not purchasing more lenses or another camera (for now--we'll see in 5 years...) 2) I don't have Photoshop and I really don't want to have to buy it. 3) My computer is a MacBook Pro laptop, so I don't know what, if anything can be done to help the monitor "pass" the calibration test because it's not (and it changes--some things better, some worse--if I tilt the screen, too... ). Any input is much appreciated. Montanabw (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

the picture is a little bit noisy, you can fix it using rawtherapee (http://rawtherapee.com) is free to download and use this is similar to ligthroom, another great tool is GIMP (https://www.gimp.org) similar to Photoshop but free to download and use, I use both on windows, but I understand that both have a mac version.--Cvmontuy (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

On the topic of free software, I also recommend darktable (http://www.darktable.org/), which is similar to lightroom. As for the photo, it looks good to me. In the future, I'd use f/8 for this type of photo for more depth of field to get both horses very sharp. I also agree with the crop suggestion... the bottom of the image is quite boring. dllu (t,c) 21:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone! This is helpful. Montanabw (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Can anyone comment on the adjustments I made to the image and tell me if I did it "right?" I cropped it from the original and did some simple color adjustments to brighten it up and make the colors look more real to my eye... but the eye of the beholder... Montanabw (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Coreopsis tinctoria

I'd appreciate input on this set of photos. Right now there are 3 versions: original, contrast fix, autofix. I used Pixlr. I also have GIMP but find the interface awkward. What are opinions of the original and how post-processing has gone so far? I think a tiny crop off the top and some of the left side might be in order too. After feedback I may put it up for QI. Thank you. PumpkinSky talk 20:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

PumpkinSky, this edition created a blue cast at the edge of the flower, would be better you treat that before the nomination, and you highly increased the noise of it, especially in the shadows, would be better if you clean that up.

When bright up the photo, you created a distraction at the bottom left and in the right top corners, this is a easy fix. And you bright up too much, some petals blow up, and we lost some information.

Just about the photo, it's a little bit unbalanced, you could crop more squarely to improve that.

Thanks for sharing, have good one. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 21:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, @Rodrigo.Argenton:. I really appreciate it. I've tried to denoise it with gimp, the version with a time stamp of 21:53, 3 May 2017. Is this better? PumpkinSky talk 21:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Good enough for FP?

I really enjoy User:Jakubhal's series of photos of the The International Festival of Street Theatre in Kraków, especially those showing performers connected by this orange costume. I think the picture I've posted here is the best of that series. Do you think I should nominate it at FPC, or do you think it would have trouble getting enough votes there? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Quite funny, but the background is distracting. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I find it very hard to predict what will and won't be successful at FPC. I have a photo nomination there now and it looked like it'll pass but now it looks like it won't. Oh well. Anyway, for this photo I think it might pass FPC but I also see Yann's point. Maybe make a copy and crop out the top at least a little below the lamp that is hanging down and see how it looks. Just my two cents. PumpkinSky talk 20:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid all of these street theatre photos would be deemed to have a distracting background, but better to find that out here than at FPC. Thanks for the feedback. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this FP Material?

Regards --Cvmontuy (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see what other people say. My answer is, maybe, and it's worth nominating if you like. I'd prefer for the little strip of unsharp foreground to be cropped out, but others might not care about that. I find File:Spheres3cu.jpg a more interesting composition, but this photo has a neater composition and it's sharper, with softer light, so I think it's a more likely FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Overall I think one is better than the one Ikan mentions. I think cropping a tiny bit of foreground might help. PumpkinSky talk 01:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Another FP query

See my QIs at the bottom of my user page. The Wat Mae Chon photo was suggested for FPC but the vote was 3-2 so it didn't make it. Of the remaining ones, I think File:Bridge on the River Kwai - tourist plaza.JPG is probably the one with the best chance at FPC. Ideas for this or my other QIs that might make FP? PumpkinSky talk 01:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It certainly deserves the badges it got, but at FPC I would probably oppose for lack of WOW. It depicts its subject well, but simply filling the frame with your subject is not always the best option for FPC. There are some distracting elements in the frame that make it a bit busy (tree front right, boat on the left, pole and roofs in the background). There are some interesting forms and patterns in that bridge that could be worth exploring by getting closer and experimenting with camera angles, though. --El Grafo (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. More shots will have to wait til I go back to Thailand ;-) @El Grafo: Could you give me feedback on this photo, if you don't mind: File:Coreopsis tinctoria cultivar Uptick Cream and Red 4.JPG.

. Many thanks.PumpkinSky talk 12:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a pretty good base to start from, but I think it could benefit from some more editing. Maybe a bit of levels adjustment, making the bright parts brighter. Maybe a little touch of sharpening (but be careful with that). I'd have to give it a try myself, but I don't have access to the right software right now. Speaking of which: For this kind of work, I wouldn't waste my time fiddling around with pixel-level editors like Photoshop or Gimp. Something like Adobe Lightroom or CaptureOne (to name the popular commercial ones) which mostly work on the image as a whole are usually used for this. Plus at some point in the future you will probably want to switch from in-camera JPGs to shooting RAW, and then knowing how to handle one of these will become incredibly useful. Free alternatives have already been named above: en:RawTherapee, en:Darktable if you're on Linux/Mac. Personally, I prefer en:LightZone for most of my quick edits, but that's a matter of taste. hth, --El Grafo (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@El Grafo: Thank you very much. Based on this and someone else's recommendation, I bought a copy of Lightroom. I think I'll start with a copy of the original photo and see how it goes. PumpkinSky talk 11:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@El Grafo: See the Lightshop version. I deleted the other processed versions, so there're only the original and Lightshop one. I also processed another picture of this plant--it's below the first one. Any thoughts?

PumpkinSky talk 21:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Greetings,

[[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by A ri gi bod (talk • contribs) 22:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, see the next entry. A ri gi bod (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This image may not contain the image of the 13th Dalai Lama as stated in the caption.

Please, see this image: [[2]] It does not appear to be the 13th Dalai Lama.

I asked a question on the talk page, but I see no response. So, here I am.

First, It does not look like him.

Second, the link given to the source image was not there when I checked months ago and is not there today. So, I cannot verify caption. Also, this linked source is a commercial seller that may not provide accurate descriptions.

Also, the date about 1900 does not make sense. I am not aware that The 13th Dalai Lama traveled south of his nation, Tibet until he went to Darjeeling in 1910 to escape the Chinese invasion forces in Lhasa lead by General Chao Er-feng know to Tibetans as "Butcher Chao" and his cavalry.

Can the portion of the image's caption with the name "13th Dalai Lama" be deleted until a verifiable source can be found that proves the caption is accurate? Or what is the proper way to proceed with this issue? Also, what happens to the other webpages that currently use this image, if the caption changes?

Thank you, A ri gi bod (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Wich one of this can be FP?

• 
• 
• 

Regards, --Cvmontuy (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you nominate them at COM:QIC first to see what feedback you get. PumpkinSky talk 10:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

All has been nominated on COM:QIC, what is you opinion for FP? regards, --Cvmontuy (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hard for me to say. I find FPC way too unpredictable. Like the new POY, in my opinion that shouldn't be a FP at all. PumpkinSky talk 14:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

My personal favorite is the one on the left, but I suggest waiting a couple days. Someone else will probably come by and comment. PumpkinSky talk 22:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I like that best, compositionally. I would expect to vote for that one for FP if nominated, but I can't speak for other people. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

They all have high educational value and are sharp and all, but the light is too dull for such static objects for an FP on Commons where the voters are always looking for "wow" or "drama". The one to the right, which you have nominated at FPC has a cool angle and could work if it had better light. I think if you crop the middle one to focus on one section, so you really feel how big these things are, and give it a bit more contrast and light so that the details can be better seen, it would have a chance. Take a look at the suggestion I have made in my dropbox, it has more impact since you are almost afraid it will roll down and crush the guys next to it. If you try to get too much into a photo, you risk loosing the audience's interest. --cart-Talk 08:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments --Cvmontuy (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

unsharp zoom -- is it me or the camera?

Not sure if this is the best forum for this, but I'm hoping to get some advice regarding where the weak link is: my camera or my technique.

I have an Olympus E-PL6, which is an entry-level micro 4/3 camera. In general I've been quite happy with it. I have a few different lenses for it, all of which have produced decent results. However, recently I decided I wanted to try a lens with a long zoom. Among other reasons, I've wanted to be able to take better pictures of birds.

First I tried the cheaper Olympus M.Zuiko 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 II. After playing with it for a couple days, I was really disappointed. I used a tripod and remote shutter, and took hundreds of pictures of various subjects outdoors in good weather. The lens was surprisingly dark, requiring either brightly lit subjects or a higher ISO, and the chromatic aberration was pretty bad. Perhaps these can be chalked up it being the cheaper option. Autofocus was severely lacking at 300mm, but even when I used manual focus on completely still subjects, the image quality was poor. This and this are what autofocus produced, more often than not. This one and this one are examples of the very best images I got with this lens, taken when the bird had been completely still and I was able to get closer than usual. They're still not very good quality.

Second I rented what I understand to be the nicest super telephoto available for MFT: Panasonic 100-400mm f4.0-6.3 pro. First thing I noticed was that, since it uses its own tripod mount, any attempt to zoom by normal means resulted in the camera itself rotating unless I held it down. That seems avoidable and squarely in the domain of user error. Again, however, I found the same problems -- though less pronounced this time. There was still a darkness issue, and at maximum zoom, even when the subject was perfectly still, I could not get a good, sharp image. For example, this turtle was maybe 15 feet in front of me and entirely still. No real brightness issue here, since it was pretty sunny. I took multiple shots, trying autofocus and manual, and this is more or less the result. Then there was this chipmunk, also nearby, and also pretty still when I took this. The biggest problem here is obviously that it was a bright day and I was shooting from under tree cover, so the light is working against me -- that much I can appreciate. But still, I'd figure that if I cranked up the ISO, while it would get noisy, it should at least be crisper? Switching to manual focus, there's this great egret and, finally a bullfrog, in a fairly bright area, quite still.

Worth mentioning none of these have been processed at all, and I'm certainly not saying they should be good -- there are other problems, indeed. What I'm looking for is some guidance regarding where my biggest problem is. Am I seeing limitations in the camera? In the MFT format? Am I approaching the settings, etc. incorrectly? Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  06:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure as I'm not experienced enough yet, but I am quite interested in what the feedback is on this. Best wishes. PumpkinSky talk 10:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• For the Olympus lens, looks like there's a focus calibration issue; the lens is always back focusing. The robin pictures at the end are simply quite dark and a bit shaken. You can bring the lens to a qualified technician to fix, it should be fairly simple. Besides producing out of focus images, it looks okay in sharpness (judging from the grass that's in focus), par for the course for a $400 telephoto lens. For the 100-400 pictures, particularly the great egret picture, there's some weird pattern going on in out-of-focus specular highlights. When there's such a strong pattern in out-of-focus point light sources, it's likely to be an optical issue. See: [3] Either: 1) you may be using a low quality filter, 2) you're shooting through a glass window, 3) the rented lens is broken (it had possibly been dropped a few times by a previous renter), 4) there are severe temperature differences, causing mirage to degrade image quality, (5) the lens was shaken or the image stabilization was not working properly. Telephoto lenses are very sensitive things as they have a very low optical power. In other words, they bend the light only very slightly to begin with, and bending it slightly more will ruin the sharpness. There's a reason why people drop $8000 on high quality 400mm primes. dllu (t,c) 15:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Dllu: thanks. I purchased the Olympus lens to try it out as I couldn't find it to rent. The results were so bad I sent it back with a note about the results just in case they wanted to take a look. Regarding the other, I wasn't using a filter, wasn't shooting through a glass window, and the temperature was very mild, so it seems the last remaining issues you raise point to possibly having used two defective lenses? Sheesh. Conspicuously missing from your list of possible causes is the camera body -- is there no way it's responsible? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• For the Olympus lens, the body could definitely have been the culprit. There is some miscalibration in the autofocus which can be either in the lens or the body. For the Panasonic lens, the problems clearly optical. The only body-related issue that can cause that would be a malfunctioning of the in-body image stabilization of the PEN E-PL6. Try testing it on a tripod with the image stabilization turned off and see if it helps at all. dllu (t,c) 23:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Little girl photo for FP?

I came across this photo and thought it may be FP worthy. Any thoughts on this? PumpkinSky talk 20:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Due to no responses, I'm going with a no, and will not nominate it. PumpkinSky talk 11:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure, though I'd lean toward no. It's an arresting image, but at full size, I think the quality is inferior to many FPs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll not nom it. Thanks for looking at it. Ikan Kekek PumpkinSky talk 01:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Certainly. It is a good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Buckeye Trail hiking pictures

I'd love some critiques of a couple of photos I took while hiking recently. I was trying to play with the depth of field and capture the trail fading off into the photo. I'm new to this, am trying to improve and thought this might be a good place to get some advice so my next pictures will be better. Thanks! Strafpeloton2 (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

In the one with carvings, tree is very sharp, but the background IMHO is TOO blurry. It even has a blotchy appearance. F/2 is too big; probably f/5-f/8 would have been better. In the one with the white blaze, I like the background much better. The tree with the blaze is fairly well focused but the area around the blaze itself is a little over exposed. Just my 2 cents. PumpkinSky talk 02:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I see what you mean about the F setting in the first picture. In the second, I'm just learning about overexposure. I think that means that area of the photo is overly bright, but not necessarily artificially white? Your point is partly made when you say the blaze is white, because it's really the same color blue as in the other picture :) . Can you recommend anything I could have done differently in the second one? Do I adjust the ISO setting? Strafpeloton2 (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

THe problem with the one with the white blaze is that it appears the sun is on the tree but the background is shady. So if you darken the blaze with a lower ISO it'll darken the background. Your best bet is to get a photo editing program. I use Lightroom. You can pay a monthly forever fee of $10 or buy it outright for $150. There are a ton of training videos for Lightroom. There many other programs out there too. Look around. THen you can darken just the area around the blaze. PumpkinSky talk 23:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That's helpful, PumpkinSky. I'm not sure I'm ready for photo editing software yet; I'm just trying to take better pictures. Once I get a better baseline I'll have to give the software a try. In the mean time, it seems like I should avoid huge light contrasts. I appreciate the input! Strafpeloton2 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Altenburg-310053-PSD.jpg

I would like to nominate this file by Ermell for FP, because I think it's beautiful and has a lovely composition, but one thing gives me pause: Is the white balance making the sky too green? What do you think?

Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hy Ikan, thanks for supporting my image. I cannot find any green in the sky. The problem with that picture was that the sunlight was already very orange so I reduced the saturation a bit.--Ermell (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I see. Thanks, Ermell. Can I see the version from before you reduced the saturation? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Baleine à bosse et son baleineau 2.jpg

If you all don't mind, here's one more. Right now, it's in Consensual Review for QI, but my question is about FP. Photos that are exciting enough can pass FP even in some cases in which the technical quality is insufficient to pass QI. So do you think this photo would be worth nominating at FPC, or is the invisibility of either whale's face disqualifying? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the photographer for that image is User:Avatea. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

{[ping|Ikan Kekek}}, it's hard for me to way will pass at FPC. I do agree it's okay to allow leeway on tech merits for very difficult shots. I know there's an understanding about clear heads for animal shots, but here we have two large moving animals, a bouncing ship, and sea swells, so I'm not sure but I'd vote for it. Plus it's a hard to obtain shot. I've spent many months on ships at sea and I've seen whales but never close enough for a photo like this, so I'd vote for it. PumpkinSky talk 11:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for giving your opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Montée Sainte-Barbe.jpg

Hi,

It's first time I go here :-)

What do you think about this image ? Is there some things I can do better ? Thank you for your help ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Touam (talk • contribs) 14:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC) --Touam (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not an expert but the right side is too dark, picture is asymetric but this asymetry is not used to guide the eye to an interesting subjet or figure, IMO, here is a small colletion of featured images that we can use to improve ours.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Regards, --Cvmontuy (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ! --Touam (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Rathausturm, Köln, 1706141026, ako.jpg

Tower of the Historic Town Hall, Cologne, Germany.

Hi all, I just wanted to present you a picture I've taken with my Samsung Galaxy S7 edge phone. I've taken this picture in RAW (.DNG) using manual mode and then made some adjustments in Lightroom. I'm really surprised how good the quality of the result is. Looks as if you don't always need a DSLR to take quality images. Although I have of course to admit that it was a bright day and therefore an easy take. What do you think? --Code (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't even know you could do RAW on a smart phone. I like the photo and think it could pass QIC. Not sure about FPC. But the town hall looks tilted backwards and to the right to me. Is it naturally that way or lens distortion? PumpkinSky talk 11:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• I did a perspective correction in Lightroom, I think there is no leaning or whatever any more. Of course there's no such thing like a shift-lens for a smartphone so the perspective correction has to be done using a software. --Code (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Code, I don't even own a DSLR. Still have 40 FPs. --cart-Talk 22:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Congrats, but how many of them did you take with your phone? (Not that I had one, but I think I've got the ambition to give it a try once. We'll see.). --Code (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Modern, high end phone cameras can certainly take QI photos in good lighting. For nighttime photography, you can stack many photos to reduce noise and get similar performance as a DSLR [4]. dllu (t,c) 06:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Butterfly 06821.JPG

Eurema hecabe

I saw this photo in QIC. Does it look like an FP to you? Seems to me like it could be, but having just had a less than thrilling experience nominating another insect photo by Vengolis at FPC, I thought I'd ask here first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I find predicting FPC baffling. For this photo the one area I see that might maybe be a problem is the bright sun on the camera left side of the butterfly, especially around the head and torso. Perhaps try cutting the exposure there a little. Just my 2 cents. PumpkinSky talk 21:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Vengolis, what do you think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek I don't consider myself a good photographer or expert in this field. I have to admit that quality of my images are no where near the quality of FP's of by Charlesjsharpor Jkadavoor.But I would like to hear what others think about my photo.Thanks for your review PumpkinSky -Vengolis (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Vengolis is indeed made a lot of good works and he is using same camera and lens as of me. The difference is, he shoots direct jpgs. Nowadays it is very difficult to get FP level quality from straight out of camera. The quality will improve dramatically if can shoot RAW and post process. CaptureOne Express is free for Sony RAW files. (In this butterfly, light is not good and the butterfly has its fore-wing improperly developed. I like this dragonfly photo except the flash reflection on the leaf.) Jee 03:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This is an OK QI, but is not sharp enough for FP. And the lighting is not well chosen. But what went wrong technically? I suspect the shutter speed is too low or the focus point is not set properly. That can be checked. I can't work out if the picture was taken auto-focus or manual focus. If manual focus was used then it is possible eyepiece is not adjusted correctly. If auto focus was used then it is possible camera is not set up correctly. I try to shoot at 1/500 hand held when I don't have much time. I don't get good results at 1/200 when I'm crouching down on the ground. I don't know how good the lens is, but Jee manages to shoot super images with it, though as we've discussed, I think 1/500 daylight gives images with more definition than 1/250 flash. The results with this lens/body are unfortunately not going to be as good as my expensive Canon 100mm Macro lens/70D crop sensor body and all my lenses have Image Stabilization.
It's interesting that everyone talks about RAW. I do shoot RAW, but actually process from JPG* most of the time using Photoshop CS6. I've sent my RAW files to a couple of Wikipedia's FP processing experts, but haven't been wowed by their efforts. But I keep the RAW files in case I learn how to do better! * You have to stop the camera doing any noise reduction etc.Charles (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much to everyone for your comments in this thread. Vengolis, I think you are a very good photographer, but I hope the very specific remarks upthread are of use to you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)