Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glardon Vallorbe LA2442-0 140 mm Swiss cut 0 6-piece needle file set.jpg

File:Glardon Vallorbe LA2442-0 140 mm Swiss cut 0 6-piece needle file set.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2017 at 09:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Glardon Vallorbe LA2442-0 140 mm Swiss cut 0 6-piece needle file set.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glardon Vallorbe LA2442-0 140 mm Swiss cut 0 6-piece needle file set.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Tools
•  Info Swiss made needle file set. All by Lucas.
•  Support – Lucas 09:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - More great work! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment I know this is just a b&w image, but can you restore the EXIF information and colour profile please. Perhaps a stage in your stacking workflow is removing the EXIF data. It is possible to copy EXIF from one file (tiff, jpg, etc) to another using EXIFTOOL. Btw, if these are thin files, why is focus stacking necessary? And how would a 20mm increment help -- surely they are less than 20mm thick? Also, information about stacking and stitching is best put on the file description page, and there are templates to help with this. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Colin:  Done 1. I restored the EXIF as you wished. Which is a bit important as this image is not grayscale, it does contain color. 2. Focus stacking was necessary because at f/8, the best aperture of my lens, the DOF wasn't large enough. The 20 mm increments are from left to right in the image, not in depth, I moved the camera along the files to get more resolution. I added that info to the description texts.– Lucas 13:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Support -- Colin (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support lNeverCry 20:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 06:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support A file of files ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Great Poco² 09:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Jee 11:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Sharp and great, but could you please make the annotations smaller? Right now they cover most of the picture at thumb size and that makes it hard to actually click on the image (when used in articles) to enlarge it since you only hit the annotations. It would be sufficient if the annotations covered just half the files, the handle part can be left out. A similar change would be appreciated on the other version as well. --cart-Talk 18:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done I experienced this issue earlier, but I was too proud of my nicely aligned annotations to change it ;) – Lucas 20:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas 12:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Tools