Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sony A77 II.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Sony A77 II.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2014 at 18:59:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sony α77 II camera
  •  Info Low-key lit photograph of the Sony α77 II camera with DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM kit lens. We have many "isolated on white" images of products and although they have undoubted utility, the result can be about as visually interesting as an eBay listing. I've gone for a different approach here with low-key lighting (softbox above, white reflector in front, black background). The result is a deliberately artistic effect rather than documenting every detail, though it captures (and indeed emphasises) aspects of the subject in a form that remains educationally useful. Hope you like it. Created, uploaded, nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Colin (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Sorry but it's too dark. I can't see the bottom part of the camera and the rear is not very sharp --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please check your monitor is calibrated and your viewing conditions optimal. For example, the texture of the camera is visible to the bottom and the focus-control knob at the base is a very dark shade of grey. But I think you may be missing the point... -- Colin (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I also think that it is bit dark. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll adjust it tonight. -- Colin (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I like the black background, the composition and I also appreciate how the lightning manages to capture the texture of the surface of the camera quite delicately on the upper side of the lens and around the controls on top of the house. However, I agree with Moroder and Yann that it could use a little light from yet another lightsource to lighten up the lower part a bit. --Slaunger (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Moroder, Yann, Slaunger: I've uploaded a new version with increased exposure and shadows. I'm reluctant to increase any further as the camera is black, not grey. The lighting style is supposed to have a considerable lighting ratio with typically one key light plus reflector, and sometimes even a substantial part of the subject in darkness (especially a black subject). The intention is not to simply produce this picture but with a black background. Btw, resources for diy monitor calibration can be found here and here. For examples of similar low-key images, see this Nikon advert, this, this, this Sony advert, this Sony leaflet and the latest Nikon 810. -- Colin (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose—Good quality but I'm having a very hard time discerning which parts of the picture are camera and which parts are background.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 21:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I usually don't challenge people's opposes, but in this case I am trying to understand why seeing all the camera is important when the intent of the image is to incite a mood in the viewer not provide a stock photo. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kelvinsong, if too much of the camera is black then either your monitor is not calibrated correctly or is poor quality (see links provided above). However, it is very much the intention that the camera should fade to black. So your oppose, frankly (sorry), seems to indicate you don't understand this very standard lighting technique. See Category:Low-key lighting (NSFW) for examples. -- Colin (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
finee  Support—though the picture you showed me you can still clearly see the camera edge.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 14:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See comment to Kelvinsong. -- Colin (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like it. It looks professional and cool this way, and very eyecatching. I do not mind that much that not all details are shown, or dissapear into the black background. If people get interested they will soon find also the more usual pics, where all the encyclopedic details are shows. The other versions from the same setup are also helpful here. And: Congratz with the new camera!!(?) --Slaunger (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - I feel the parts that are critical are visible. Nikhil (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Now it looks perfect but sincerely imo it is not FP --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral per above, because : 1. I think product photography needs longer focal length ; 2. There's too much light IMO for the intended result. Maybe it should have come more from behind. That said it's a very nice attempt, and the result is still quite good (hence neutral ;-)). - Benh (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Looks well done -- Christian Ferrer Talk 18:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --· Favalli ⟡ 00:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Good quality, and nice as a promo shot, but for the educational value, I'd rather like more light. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yann, this prejudice that our finest educational images must be fully lit with a blank white canvas is flawed and harmful to the project. To begin with, all notable features of this camera are clearly visible (such that they can be seen from this angle) so more light would not actually make the image more educationally useful. The three-dimensional form of this camera is actually more apparent in the nomination than a conventional Commons photograph. But even assuming some aspects of the camera were hidden by this lighting, does that make this form of lighting unsuitable or suboptimal for Commons? A project who's educational mission extends far beyond providing a thumbnail for a Wikipedia article. Leaf through a professional modern educational publication or website and you will not find endless brightly-lit-on-white product shots. For professional photo editors know that the reader deserves interesting pictures that engage the eye. If "fully lit" were a justification on Commons FP, then we wouldn't accept the countless nighttime shots of city scapes. We wouldn't celebrate silhouette (File:The Photographer.jpg or File:SMP May 2008-9a.jpg). Nor sunbeams (File:Chicago Union Station 1943.jpg or File:Locomotives-Roundhouse2.jpg). And don't get me started on those who reject black-and-white as a medium, for if that was valid we'd miss out on File:Bicycle reflections.jpg and the wonderful File:Falling rain in mexico.jpg. At times, Commons FP has a very small mindset regarding what is excellent educational imagery. Look to see what the professionals use in their publications, not what amateurs have already produced on Wikipedia. -- Colin (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Colin: I think you take my comments too personally. As I said, your picture is good, and would certainly be appreciated by marketing people. But it doesn't change anything in my view. Try it as FP on the English Wikipedia if you think I am wrong. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Commons is not Wikipedia. But even so, I see no reason why it should fail on en:wp other than for the same misconceptions over what is educational. The reason I raise the issue isn't for my one picture, which I don't care if it passes or not, but to reject the principle you and others have claimed. That somehow a boring stock photo (which is photographed on white traditionally because that makes it easy extract with Photoshop and paste onto other backgrounds), is the only valid lighting for Commons objects. -- Colin (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose sorry, but a black item on a black background is a no go for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Sony_A77_II.jpg&oldid=127954257"