Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Contaflex BW 1.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Contaflex BW 1.JPG, not featured
[edit]
Voting period ends on 15 May 2009 at 18:15:26
Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)- Support. I was just pondering whether I should nominate it. The background and lighting are very nice, DOF is good, technical aspects are also good. Plus I like the composition with the dynamic tilt. I know, it's just an old camera, but it's a good picture. --Dschwen (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose No wow. —kallerna™ 14:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)- Oppose, dust and hairs inside of the lens hood, and various other minor problems. Sorry, but product FP photos have to be virtually perfect. --Aqwis (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Someone get Berthold a time-machine to fetch a brand new Contaflex! --Dschwen (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Surely it wouldn't take a new camera to get rid of the dust? --Aqwis (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- virtually perfect implies that scratches and abrasions would disqualify the picture as well. Nah well, in any case, this is not a product shot, we are not trying to sell anything here, we want to encyclopedically document (imperfect) things. --Dschwen (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Although we're not trying to sell the product, it's not this individual camera that the picture should document, but rather the type of camera. Therefore, since the dust and scratches are not part of the design of the camera, they should be eliminated as far as possible from the individual camera that is the subject of the photo. Still, of course, scratches, which can't easily be removed, are obviously unavoidable on a decades-old camera. Hairs and dust, on the other hand, is far easier to get rid of, and doing so is simply part of the effort mandatory in order to get a picture promoted to FP status. I'd support the picture if the dust and hairs inside of the lens hood was removed, as it is otherwise a high-quality picture with excellent lighting. --Aqwis (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough, you made a solid point there. --Dschwen (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Although we're not trying to sell the product, it's not this individual camera that the picture should document, but rather the type of camera. Therefore, since the dust and scratches are not part of the design of the camera, they should be eliminated as far as possible from the individual camera that is the subject of the photo. Still, of course, scratches, which can't easily be removed, are obviously unavoidable on a decades-old camera. Hairs and dust, on the other hand, is far easier to get rid of, and doing so is simply part of the effort mandatory in order to get a picture promoted to FP status. I'd support the picture if the dust and hairs inside of the lens hood was removed, as it is otherwise a high-quality picture with excellent lighting. --Aqwis (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- virtually perfect implies that scratches and abrasions would disqualify the picture as well. Nah well, in any case, this is not a product shot, we are not trying to sell anything here, we want to encyclopedically document (imperfect) things. --Dschwen (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Surely it wouldn't take a new camera to get rid of the dust? --Aqwis (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Someone get Berthold a time-machine to fetch a brand new Contaflex! --Dschwen (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support per Dschwen. --DsMurattalk 18:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As Aqwis. Even an old scratched camera can be cleaned from dust and hairs, can it? Lycaon (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As others, also I don't like that white halo around the camera. --Spock lone wolf (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
