Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Princeton Archway

Princeton Walkway[edit]

Rmved Edit #2 since it didnt do anything... this is #4, with some straightening and some cropping.

The image is of a walkay at Princeton. I believe it shows the architecture well, as well as providing an artistic feel. I am looking for feedback, good or bad. As this is my first submission, I do not have illusions of grandeur. Simply honest comments regarding how I can better improve my style as well as my contributions.

Edited Its as best as I can do with Picasa. I dont have the funds for the better editing software. If someone can recommend a great budget one that would be beautiful. Feel free to edit at will, however, if you believe that can work. Thanks! Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 09:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by: Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 19:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I really like the composition, and, but for technical quality, this would be a really good photo, perhaps even enough for FP. However, in its current state, it is soft, overexposed, tilted, and noisy. For sharpness and noise, there is nothing you can do except to use a better camera. However, overexposure can be fixed by metering for the bright area outdoors. If you have the option, manual exposure is the optimal choice. If you can, try a reshoot with a better camera and exposure and post the results back up here—I'm interested in how it would look. Thegreenj 03:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, budget software recommendation: the GIMP. I don't use it, but it's basically a free version of Photoshop. That said, you can't fix everything with editing; there's no way to add detail or recover areas overexposed to the point that they have no detail. Thegreenj 00:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Third edit, got the tree on the other side of the archway to show through. Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 00:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...at the expense of a flat, green sky. This method works OK once in a while with blown skies when the blended layer is a gradient, but I'd just leave this alone. Right now, it's a good picture to illustrate the architecture of Princeton, but I don't think the technical quality will be salvageable for FP no matter the editing. The one simple thing to correct that would improve the photo immensely, though, is tilt—try using the lamps or the arch walls as a reference point. Thegreenj 01:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I actually did straighten it before I stuck it in here... and when I open the utility again, it seems to line up fine. Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 09:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmmm... here's about where I'd put it. I think the camera was pointed up a little, so parallel lines (like the sides of the arches) actually begin to converge, so trying to straighten based on just one of them is going to be inaccurate. Thegreenj 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like your #3 edit, but would note that it's a bit off-center, based on the basal butresses of the arches. but nice tone, nice composition -- quite an effective photo. You might try cropping the left a bit for balance. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I didnt even notice that the cropping was off! This is why I love extra eyes! Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 09:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder