Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Petra Martic 1, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg

File:Petra Martic 1, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2015 at 22:22:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Petra Martic 1, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Petra Martic 1, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg

•  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. Petra Martic, a Croatian professional tennis player serving at Wimbledon in 2013. I figured with the recent heavy discussion regarding portraits and technical issues such as imperfect focus, I'd nominate a challenging image and see what the consensus is. Although focus is not perfectly centred on her face, I think overall sharpness is satisfactory for a non-studio 'action shot' taken in late evening light though and the lighting and composition is pleasant, but I'm interested to see what others think. -- Diliff (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Diliff (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 02:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support It's really not so much a portrait as a sports action shot. A little CA on her left arm but what can you do that you might not have already done? Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)-
•  Support that's for me a "wow(!) effect" only... --Bojars (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support In the WP:FP you said "there is strong contrast in the late afternoon light and that's what's great about the image IMO. I've got plenty of images of people serving in even, overcast lighting but that also makes the image a bit... boring and undramatic." In addition to the lighting, the subject is positioned well with no distracting background (the scoreboard adds context) and the pose is caught just right with the eyeline towards the ball in the air. -- Colin (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --El Grafo (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support For me there is no doubt that the "pose", the light and the nice background are very good. If I saw this picture on a serious news site in an usual resolution, I would rather like it and surely not notice that is wasn't shot with a 300 2.8. The only caveat is of course the sharpness. Personally, I have some experience shooting cricket at comparable focal lengths, albeit with inferior equipment and I found it hard to get perfectly sharp images and ended up with a comparable amount of remaining "not-quite-sharpness". Given the type of image we have here and the uniqueness, I think that the flaws are within an acceptable range. --DXR (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You have been photographing cricket? What kind of strange German-living-in-Paris are you? :-) Cricket must be a lot harder to shoot with 300mm actually, because the action is a lot further away than on a tennis court. I would have thought a 600mm would be more useful, but only the professionals have access to that kind of lens. Diliff (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Haha, well first of all, I'm primarily a German-living-in-Germany... just was in Paris for a semester abroad. Tbh, the cricket I photographed in Germany was pretty informal and just a team of Indian students (and me). I shot on APS-C, so it was a bit longer, but surely still too short. BTW: my very first upload here was also cricket-related ;-). --DXR (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:19, 07 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People