Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:TOBURAILWAY SERIES6050 6151F SECRAPID6R.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:TOBURAILWAY SERIES6050 6151F SECRAPID6R.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2014 at 07:05:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Ohtsuka Makoto - uploaded by Ohtsuka Makoto - nominated by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Support a very pleasant angle, interessting object, technical perfect, enough "wow" for me. -- Wladyslaw (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)- Support I like it.--ArildV (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I really like it, but there is no "WOW". --XRay talk 16:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)- Oppose I like the subject, BUT: 4.7MP out of a 24MP camera (downsampled? or 5 times digital zoom?), ISO 800 in bright daylight? Unsharp foreground, unsharp tail of the train. Burnt out (and brought back to grey) sky on the upper right. Strange looking background. --P e z i (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- (1) What's the problem with the downsampling? It's just the decision of the photographer. The minimum requirement is given! Maybe the photographer wants to sell a version of higher resolution and gives us this one. This is his right to do so if he wants.
- (2) All important parts of this train are in focus and sharp. For sure neither the tail nor the bottom part is important. So we have perfect focus here.
- (3) We can't judge how the lightning situation was in fact. So the ISO 800 may be a good decision. First: for me it does not look like a very shiny day, more like a cloudy one. Second: we have here a moving object and not a fixed. So ISO 800 isn't very wrong to ensure a short exposure time. I don't see an adverse effect of noise in this picture, are you?
- (4) I don't see anything strange about this background. Did I miss s.th.? --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Btw, offering low-resolution with a CC licence while thinking you one can sell the high-resolution version is no longer wise since CC have warned they may be considered legally the same "work of copyright" and so both under CC. -- Colin (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- It was just an assumption and is absolutely not relevant why the photographer did resize the original. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Btw, offering low-resolution with a CC licence while thinking you one can sell the high-resolution version is no longer wise since CC have warned they may be considered legally the same "work of copyright" and so both under CC. -- Colin (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support Well-composed, good exposure. No problems with size either. --DAJF (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support Tax, a couple of real good ones like this just popped into QI. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I'm really picky about rule-of-thirds, and the picture also isn't sharp enough. Good capture nonetheless. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow and technically nothing special. -- Colin (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support Kapsuglan (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 17:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
