Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chocolatebrownie.JPG

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Chocolatebrownie.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2015 at 14:33:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A photograph of a homemade chocolate brownie.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
  •  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ɱ -- ɱ (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- ɱ (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support YUM! Daniel Case (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Daniel. --Tremonist (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. Very nice. —Bruce1eetalk 04:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I'm hungry. --Pine✉ 05:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I struggle to find this appealing both as a scrumptious treat and as a photo with any wow factor.--Fotoriety (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Pofka (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose For Foto --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Has wow potential, but somehow the overall sharpness does not satisfy me, sorry. --A.Savin 18:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per A.Savin. I can see the need for a high F-number for sufficient DOF, but it looks like f/25 introduced quite some diffraction. --El Grafo (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry. Focus stacking would have been necessary here. The sharpness is not sufficient. --Code (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Focus stacking is overrated. This is a single photograph I took, which should be given some merit. I also don't see any lack of sharpness.--ɱ (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not overrated if it produces better results than a single photo. The fact that it was a single photo when focus stacking is possible doesn't mean it should be given particular merit. I'm not saying you absolutely had to use focus stacking, but if the image suffers because you didn't, you can't really argue "but it's good for what it is". It's like me saying that I took a photo of a flying bird at dusk at ISO 6400 and managed to freeze the movement. Yes, great, but it's very noisy and not as useful as it could otherwise be, and unless there's something inherently special about the fact that it was taken at dusk (perhaps it exhibited special behaviour only seen at dusk), then the counter-argument will be "why didn't you take it during the day when the sun was shining and you could have used ISO 400 or lower instead?". And rightly so. Likewise, if you'd used focus stacking, you could have had a much wider aperture which would have increased sharpness considerably (if you don't see a diffraction related softening at f/25 then I don't really know what else to say). For me, if I had to give you one piece of advice.... You should have either used focus stacking and got the whole brownie in good focus and sharpness, or you should have gone for a narrow depth of field and tried for a more artistic 'food photography' style. This image, for me, is in between. Neither one or the other. It's a good image (and it is appetising looking!) but not a great image. Diliff (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'd like to clarify that I don't think focus stacking would be necessary. Here's a good example with similar motif, afaik no FS. --A.Savin 14:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't compare them. This image is of a small object that needs macro photography (and therefore depth of field is much smaller). Jebulon's image is taken from much further back and was therefore able to get the entire cake in focus with just f/9. It's apples and oranges. Actually, looking closely at Jebulon's image, I wonder if maybe he did actually use focus stacking. Look at the details just below the main body of the cake. There are duplicates of everything. All the dots and dust particles. Perhaps it's not because of focus stacking, but there's something strange going on in that image. Diliff (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'd be surprised if any commercial stock photo of food "XX on White" is focus stacked. Most use of such images are for web illustration or thumbnail sized photos in books, both of which do not require high resolution. The need for stacking such images seems to me to be a Commons artefact. IIRC, I did focus stack my File:Electric steam iron.jpg photo, but that was mostly out of curiosity about the technique rather than thinking all product shots need to be stacked. So I think we should be wary about insisting on (or even recommending) focus stacking for non-macro photography. A plain "XX on White" photograph probably has to be technically perfect these days to wow anyone on Commons FP, though there's certainly value in that kind of image for Wikipedia and similar publications. I'd love to see more of the kind of food shots that don't look like they were taken in a laboratory, for example, this kind of photography. -- Colin (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right that commercial stock photos of food are likely not focus stacked. But they also tend to be more artistically presented, even when a simple 'xx on white'. Also, I don't think we should assume that most commercial stock photos of food would and should be FP quality either - we have different standards, rightly or wrongly. But yes, as I said in my comments above, a photo of this sort should either be artistically presented (in a homely or restaurant environment to elicit a sense of belonging to a meal or a location or even a memory) or be a technically perfect image. This image is neither one nor the other. Probably the reason why most people were suggesting focus stacking instead of a more artistic presentation is because it seems, from the image above, that the photographer was going for the sterile, technical shot, so the voters suggested what would allow it to it pass muster as a technical shot. If it had been a flawed artistic shot, the advice would have centred around how to improve it artistically. Diliff (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose sorry, but the quality is not sufficient enough. needs focus stacking. --Hubertl 15:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per my comments above. Diliff (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Jean11 (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Chocolatebrownie.JPG&oldid=168952467"