Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canon EOS 400D.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Canon EOS 400D.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2009 at 19:26:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Der Wolf im Wald -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
*--Korall (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose EOS 50D gives you 15MP to play around with in a studio shot. Why leave us here with just over 2?
Comment I had to crop it, so the resolution decreased. Besides a resolution of more than 2mp is enough for such an object without small and fine details. -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, and 640kB are enough memory for everybody as well... --Dschwen (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Question Why did you choose to crop the shadow on the right? --99of9 (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- In my opinion the shadow is irrelevant for the encyclopedic function of the picture. In thumb view the camera would be smaller (in the same image size) if the sadow would not be cropped and you could not see the details of the camera as good as now. -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- InfoAn earlier version was a high resolution image so I reverted. Its better now IMO, but the shadow is still cropped. I willing to support a crop with the shadow is seen in full.--Korall (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- In my opinion the shadow is irrelevant for the encyclopedic function of the picture. In thumb view the camera would be smaller (in the same image size) if the sadow would not be cropped and you could not see the details of the camera as good as now. -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose QI and maybe VI (maybe I shouldn't say it, but this one lacks the "wow"). —kallerna™ 17:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Resolution seems to be high enough. -- Nicolas17 (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support it is best photo in category, nice look --George Chernilevsky talk 13:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose too shallow DOF for such a static picture (the flash for example is quite unsharp). — Yerpo Eh? 09:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Partly per Kallerna however it really isn't sharp enough in my view either. --Herby talk thyme 13:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
