Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nikon D850.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Nikon D850.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2019 at 22:22:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose With studio shots of cameras, there can be a pretty fine line between QI and FP. But if you compare this to File:Sony A77 II.jpg, some differences emerge: 1) the Sony is lit in a way that makes it look dramatic, while the current picture has flat lighting; 2) f/13 was used on the Sony vs. f/8 here, resulting in more depth of field, and for me the shutter release here is not acceptably in focus; 3) the Sony has a higher level of contrast and "pop." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, but why should be this image "dramatic"? Wikipedia is a project to build an encyplopedia and not a taboild. As can seen here Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Optical_devices most of the FP are not dramatic. A lack of contrast or focus I can't locate. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Problems with the depth of the field that make some prominent areas are out of focus, poor lighting that generates little contrast, the camera is dirty. In a perfectly controlled environment, as this is the case, one expects to see better image quality --Photographer 01:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Poor lightning though all is lightend well? A few dustspots you call the camera is dirty? Very joky. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others, particularly the drab grey background, shallow DOF and all the dirt. You could have wiped the camera clean and blown off remaining dust (or remove it digitally). You could have performed a focus stack to get all relevant areas of the subject in focus and not blurry. You could have controlled the background better using extra light and/or a translucent surface and/or post-processing. A clean white background makes it also more suitable for use in articles, see this example: File:2017 Nikon D5500.jpg. The pure encyclopedic value gets more consideration at the Wikipedia FP candidates, here at Commons FPC we tend to focus more on photographic merit. As a last note, the file name is a bit too generic for my taste, at least the lens should have been mentioned. – Lucas 10:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others; shallow DoF and CA. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
