Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Steinway & Sons upright piano, model 1098, manufactured at Steinway's factory in New York City.jpg/3
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Steinway & Sons upright piano, model 1098, manufactured at Steinway's factory in New York City.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 01:29:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Steinway & Son - uploaded by Fanoftheworld - nominated by Nobelpeopleuploader -- Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)- Still Support. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 18:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer 12:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Third nom after two previous declines. What's new ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please judge the photo and not the number of nominations. The quality of the photo is much higher this time. At the first nomination it was 1.29 MB, which was too low, so it was withdrawn by the nominator. At the second nomination it was 4.47 MB big and supported by all who participated in the election, but unfortunately too few participated in the election. Therefore this third nomination is like the second nomination - but I hope more will participate this time. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Yes, it looks like some hopeless attempt to get it promoted. - Benh (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please judge the photo and not the nominator. The quality of the photo is much higher this time. At the first nomination it was 1.29 MB, which was too low, so it was withdrawn by the nominator. At the second nomination it was 4.47 MB big and supported by all who participated in the election, but unfortunately too few participated in the election. Therefore this third nomination is like the second nomination - but I hope more will participate this time. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes much higher, but still looks like an upscale. And can't really tell if artifacts are from bad compression or from artifacts so I maintain my oppose, until someone proves me wrong. Have tried to check on a quick googling, but nothing to prove either point. - Benh (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Quite poor sharpness for a studio shot of such a high-class product. The sharpness and level of detail might be sufficient on an outdoor scenery shot but isn’t here. Also, there are certain traces of noise visible on the black surface. Nice shot but in this case I expect a distinctly higher quality. Steinway’s art director would most certainly not be satisfied with this file to be printed on their glossy brochures. It’s simply not "crisp" enough. --Kreuzschnabel 05:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you think the photo doesn't have sharpness and a great level of detail. Would you please specify what you mean by "certain traces of noise visible on the black surface"?, because I am almost sure you are wrong. You are aware that this photo shows a piano with a "satin lustre lacquer finish" (and NOT the usual "high polish polyester finish")??? --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment I added some annotations regarding the noise traces. I am quite aware this is not a polished shiny surface because it’s got a somewhat "brushed" look, maybe I am mistaken here. Then there’s the sharpness/resolution issue. Of course there is some detail but it’s still not sharp enough for a studio shot. The brass screws, the Steinway logo, they’re just not perfectly in focus. Have a look at this image of me which is being discussed on QIC. It has been taken outside, no tripod, handheld camera at a 35-mm-equivalent focal length of 104 mm. Still you see every surface detail on the statue crisp sharp, the level of detail is way better than in this studio shot, at comparable resolutions (16.1 resp. 14.6 mpix). By the way, there’s some bad cutout at the bottom, see notes. Things visible in the reflection that certainly are not part of the piano. --Kreuzschnabel 07:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing featurable here. Simple piano shot with removed background. -- Pofka (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the idea of a studio photo. There is no noise. It is a straightforward photo. You can find many of these "simple" (as you called it) shots as featured pictures, just look at Commons:Featured pictures/Plants. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
