Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Filigranski nakit 02.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Filigranski nakit 02.JPG[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2013 at 21:53:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Slavica Panova - uploaded by Slavica Panova - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)- Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment Image has very shallow DOF, aperture f/1,8 and shutter speed 1/1250 was not an appropriate choice. --Ivar (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Too many blurred areas --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)- Oppose per Ivar, and axial chromatic aberration is very noticeable. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 09:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose very strong CAs visible. I think f/1,8 is a bit inappropriate = DOF too small. The black parts in the background are also disturbing. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've added a cropped version as an example to the Chromatic aberration Wikipedia article. -- Colin (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
nice idea, but it will be more interesting to know the kind of the lens! Oh, I find this information in the exif data: probably a AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G lens. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that is particularly relevant except to a gear nerd or someone wanting to rubbish Nikon lenses. Particularly the way you made the offending words bold! This is a common issue with fast lenses used wide-open. So I don't think you should have added that extra text to the article -- it will just annoy Nikon fans. -- Colin (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- The words are corrected. "it will just annoy Nikon fans" --> this is the truth of this lens! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that is particularly relevant except to a gear nerd or someone wanting to rubbish Nikon lenses. Particularly the way you made the offending words bold! This is a common issue with fast lenses used wide-open. So I don't think you should have added that extra text to the article -- it will just annoy Nikon fans. -- Colin (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've added a cropped version as an example to the Chromatic aberration Wikipedia article. -- Colin (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support--R ašo
13:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC) - Support Weak "yes".--Никола Стоіаноски 14:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Two Macedonian supports come along in a hour. User:MacedonianBoy's only contributions to FPC have been this FPC and another current
Macedonian FPC -- Colin (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, that's not completely true. I voted for picture of the year. And, am I not allowed to vote? I vote whenever I have time to do so. If it was a support, don't you think I would write negative comment, of some kind?--Никола Стоіаноски 18:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Two Macedonian supports come along in a hour. User:MacedonianBoy's only contributions to FPC have been this FPC and another current
Macedonian FPC -- Colin (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alchemist. Jee 14:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alchemist. --P e z i (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination because of the existence of chromatic aberration as others suggested above.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
