Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Acorn Group
High res., good pic., good lighting. I would like to get an FP on this. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 17:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- Composition looks pretty good and it has some other good elements; I'd suggest a bit of a crop off the bottom as the branch currently is towards the top of the photo which looks a little odd. However this has very strange things happening in the background, even at image page size. There is a lot of noise, and there also looks to be significant artifacting which almost seems odd given the filesize. These issues would need to be fixed before nominating, but personally I suspect they are so significant it may be unfixable, or at least more trouble than it's worth given that it would be considered an easily reproducible shot. Given the likely shooting circumstances and the stated shutter speed I can only guess the ISO (not stated) went quite high and introduced all the noise; perhaps try some manual control at lower ISO and correspondingly lower shutter speed. A proper species ID is also required; 'acorn' is really not precise enough. --jjron (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Looking again at fullsize there doesn't appear to be significant artifacting - it was just that the noise was so bad. However the noise is bad right through the picture and I can't see how it could be fixed to any acceptable degree without totally killing all detail in the picture. Looking now at the full exif info I see you've shot it in 'Fast Shutter' mode which has set auto ISO, and has probably chosen the highest ISO on the camera which is beyond any acceptable level. Given I would assume this was taken in the shade, using this mode was really not a good choice. I can only suggest a reshoot taking care with camera settings. --jjron (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Seconder