Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:LightsVintageMBTruck 2.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:LightsVintageMBTruck 2.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2010 at 21:02:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by --Pjt56 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC), - uploaded by --Pjt56 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC), - nominated by -- Pjt56 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Info Lights on a vintage Daimler-Benz truck (Mercedes-Benz Museum, Stuttgart, Germany)
Support -- Pjt56 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose unsharp foreground (main object is not in focus). Compare it with top part of radiator. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment IMO the radiator, the fender, and the parts in between are equally sharp. Other opinions? --Pjt56 (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Top part of the radiator is less unsharp than some other parts of the image. I like the idea/composition however at 1:1 it is not sharp enough for FP for me I'm afraid. --Herby talk thyme 18:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Neutral Composition and the harmonious colors are nice, but the others are right about sharpness... Do you think you can improve it without bringing in too much noise? Nikopol (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Info I have uploaded a sharpened version. If this one is still not good enough I have a reason to visit the museum again (and ask for permission to use a tripod) ... --Pjt56 (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would support this version, since the sharpening is done well (except for some haloing, but IMO it´s not grave) and because I love the colors. But there is one thing: This time, you did not correct the perspective. It is only a small change, but in comparision, I think like the composition of the old version better ;) Nikopol (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Next try :-) Your point is valid from an aesthetic point of view, but when I look at the raw picture I'm afraid that the parts on the probably hand-build truck are far from being really vertical and/or parallel. I did my best to correct this in the image. --Pjt56 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I already imagined that the correction might maybe not be completely realistic (though pleasing in terms of composition), and I think you found a good compromise there. On this version, with the decrease of halos you again reduced overall sharpness (I would have recommended selectively taking out only the halos in a mask, since the rest of the image was desperately longing for sharpness). But as it seems, all your fine work will not convince the rest, so maybe you really should try reshooting if you want to return to the museum anyway. But thanks a lot for your work! Nikopol (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the arrangement of the two lights and unusual subject, but somehow, it just does not induce significant readings on my wow-o-meter. Overall quality is OK. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
