Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:ST90E40ZL1 MCU.jpg

File:ST90E40ZL1 MCU.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2023 at 15:04:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:ST90E40ZL1 MCU.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:ST90E40ZL1 MCU.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
•  Info created and uploaded by Mister rf - nominated by Mister rf -- Mister rf (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mister rf (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive. I'm not sure why it is presented with a tilt, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Through these photos I took, macro/extreme macro, I try to emphasize the three-dimensional qualities of that object in the frame, to reveal elements that are otherwise not perceived by the viewer. It would be much simpler to make the classic version, fewer photos are needed, even without stacking, sometimes even one is enough, because a large DoF is not needed, and therefore the elimination of some processing stages, saves time, but some information is lost IMO.

  Here’s the same microcontroller, in a “scanner” view perspective. Mister rf (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• I like the idea of looking at it from behind, for exactly the reasons you state. The thing I'm questioning is tilting is to the side. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Support Very good. (IMHO the lateral tilting adds a bit of tension/suspense/… to the image, the photo could appear a bit too clinical without it.) --Aristeas (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment impressive quality indeed, but something about it subconsciously feels wrong and unnatural about this - and given the surprisingly low amount of votes, I think others might have a similar problem. It's not the tilt, though, at least not on its own. I think it may be the brightness gradient of the artificial background not not being consistent with the frontal lighting of the subject. As boring as it is, I think I'd prefer a flat and neutral background for this kind of shot. --El Grafo (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your input, any remarks/observations can help me improve my photography techniques. As suggested, here's a version where I've removed the background.

  Mister rf (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Support --Yann (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Both ok for me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• seeing the alternative, this is now indeed an  Oppose for me. --El Grafo (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Alternative

•  Info Alternative file, a retouched picture with background removed. --Mister rf (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Also good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support This works much better for me. --El Grafo (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support per El Grafo. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Both ok for me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support also. Yann (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support for both. --Aristeas (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support for both. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support also for both--MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Princess Rosalina 🍵 458469 07:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC))

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

The chosen alternative is: File:ST90E40ZL1 (2).png