Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Superfície - bordo trifólio.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Superfície - bordo trifólio.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2017 at 04:19:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Mathematical surface which the boundaries are the trefoil knot (24 photos stacked, focus and exposition stacking) created by Rodrigo.Argenton - uploaded by Rodrigo.Argenton - nominated by Rodrigo.Argenton -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 04:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 04:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)- Support --Basotxerri (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment very impressive and will be delighted to support, but please check my annotations. Charles (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Neutral per Charles. Support now. Daniel Case (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)- @Charlesjsharp and Daniel Case: could you check it now? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 14:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support sorted. Charles (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Joalpe (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The bottom half is not well-lit due to the use of the black reflective surface. I don't see the point in the black surface since it is too dark to provide an interesting reflection -- it would need to be lit much brighter than this to compensate. There are still some errors in the focus stacking, which I'm not convinced is the best choice of technique for a 3D form like this -- the gentle blur with distance would provide some depth clues which are missing. (Not that keen on the colour.) -- Colin (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- I fixed the issue. About dof, there are better ways to give the idea of three-dimensionality, contrast, for example, this harsh light have this role here; and you (plural) complain a lot about the lack of dof... The colour, is the colour of the object, and your problem... Reflex, the original is just 0.5 stop darker than the object, someone, probably you, complained in the pass about the competition between reflex and object, I'll not remove the reflex, if you want, this is a free image, you can create your own. Thanks for your time. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 23:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- The reflection is about 4 stops darker than the object, not 0.5 stops. Or are you saying you deliberately darkened it? Yes, opinions vary about DoF and whether the whole object needs to be in focus. I'm just not finding the light, on the shiny surface, to be particularly helpful in demonstrating the 3D. If one wants a perfect image, sharp from front to back, demonstrating a mathematical form, then why not just render it in a computer? -- Colin (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I fixed the issue. About dof, there are better ways to give the idea of three-dimensionality, contrast, for example, this harsh light have this role here; and you (plural) complain a lot about the lack of dof... The colour, is the colour of the object, and your problem... Reflex, the original is just 0.5 stop darker than the object, someone, probably you, complained in the pass about the competition between reflex and object, I'll not remove the reflex, if you want, this is a free image, you can create your own. Thanks for your time. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 23:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Colin did you open the file page? This is a part of digitalisation project, we are filming, photographing, and with the help of community, improving mathematical articles around this objects. Some pieces we are render in a computer, some pieces we are taking files that able print objects in a 3D printer. My paper is to photograph, as the best I can, this is part of the agreement. And I darkened it deliberately as a result of complains on other similar objects evaluated here, saying that the reflex derail the attention of the object, that is why this it is so dark. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 01:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think you darkened it too much. Why show a full reflection if not for it to add something? I think it is so dark here that much of the frame is taken up by something you can barely see. If you take a square crop, say, then you have a little reflection (which I'd still lighten compared to this) that indicates the object is on a reflective surface but doesn't take up so much dominance in the frame. My comment about computer rendering is that by taking a photo stack to achieve front-to-back sharpness, you end up with something closer to a computer render than a photo. It isn't actually sharp front-to-back, and the lighting isn't great imo, so I think you've not succeeded in demonstrating "photography" wrt models. If there was demonstrable relatively shallow depth of focus, and clever lighting, then you could achieve something that is more like photography. And if you added something natural, like a fabric, wood, fur, skin, sky, water, etc, then you might get some nice contrast between a pure mathematical model and an impure world. It's your project, of course, but computer images are often boring because the are too simply rendered, so why emulate that in a photo when you can do better? -- Colin (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support Very nice, although I agree with Colin about the color... but that is not a problem since this is the kind of image that is so easy to convert into any color you like. I'm very tempted to upload some versions of it just because of the cool form. :) --cart-Talk 18:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support As always. ;) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
