Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Dernekamp, Feld -- 2018 -- 0050.jpg

File:Dülmen, Dernekamp, Feld -- 2018 -- 0050.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2018 at 15:47:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Dernekamp, Feld -- 2018 -- 0050.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Dernekamp, Feld -- 2018 -- 0050.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
•  Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- XRay ^talk 15:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Nice textural photo. I have tried similar views many times and failed, it's not as easy as it looks. --Cart (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Poco² 18:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --A.Savin 19:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Little is sharp. Charles (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Large sharp areas are impossible in such a shot. I speak from experience. --Cart (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Sorry. With more sharpness the photograph becomes more restless. An aperture of f/11 is IMO more than enough. I tried several times more or less aperture and it didn't work, f/8 up to f/11 is IMO a good choice. Otherwise it becomes too unsharp or too restless. --XRay ^talk 04:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• @Charlesjsharp: Is this a joke or are you serious? --Code (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• I am serious. Charles (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

•  Support Very nice. --Code (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose If the sharpness range would be really sharp it would be an F.P. for me.--Ermell (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose: very nice compo, but DOF could be better. --Ivar (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

   Comment Maybe with a TS-lens or so. But I don't think it's fair to demand it --A.Savin 13:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

•  Support Per Cart's experience, and ... it's texture. IMO that means the shortcomings of the DoF actually enhance it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
•  weak oppose The image does have a certain something in terms of evocativeness, but I can't get past the lack of sharpness created by this effect. I know the use of a shallow DoF is done on purpose, but since the placing of the grass is so chaotic, it means that hardly any of them get any sharpness whatsoever, since none of them hit the shallow focus point perfectly. Looking at the straws, I can't find a single one that is sharp, even the ones that are supposed to be.--Peulle (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• I know the argument of DoF, but I can't follow. I'm trying to identify the problem, but I can't. IMO a lot of straws are sharp (enough). And DoF is good with f/11 (and APS-C Sensor). More means more diffraction and loss of sharpness. --XRay ^talk 07:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• @XRay: FWIW, I don't think DOF actually is the problem here. I think it might be that the sections that are +/- in focus are all concentrated in the lower half of the frame, so the fraction of out-of-focus background is pretty large. Moving the sharp sections higher up towards the center (by pointing the camera down a bit or shooting from a slightly lower position) might help – but then you'd probably have to deal with additional out-of-focus foreground … --El Grafo (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yep, placing the DoF in the middle and you'd end up with something like this. Messy. I didn't even want to upload this at first since it came out so bad (and this was my best try) but if it can serve as an example of what middle ground focus can do, so be it. --Cart (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

•  Support --El Grafo (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Rbrechko (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Disregarding the discussion of DoF, like others, I like the idea, but I just don't find this that great a composition to move my eyes around. To anticipate a possible question of how it could be better, that would have solely to do with the combination of shapes and is nothing nearly simple enough to describe in theory - I have to judge each picture of this kind of motif by what happens when I look at it. I guess my taste and standards for what makes a great composition differ from many other voters here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much blur for a texture photography, or something special is missing. It might be "not so easy" for the photographers to achieve such kind of shots, but based on my emotion and pleasure to look at it, the result is just not outstanding -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sharpness, per others. --Karelj (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)