Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Taiwanese Monk at the Salar of Uyuni, Bolivia.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Taiwanese Monk at the Salar of Uyuni, Bolivia.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2014 at 18:58:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Christopher Crouzet - uploaded by Christopher Crouzet - nominated by Christopher Crouzet -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Onging, but long parallel discussion about the monk and the issue of consent |
---|
|
- Support Jee 03:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 06:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. Yann (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support Magic lighting and setting. Hopefully this picture won't get deleted. And yes, taiwanese people take pictures every 5 minutes ;) (no offense intended, just a reference to people I know). - Benh (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support magic mood! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support Only fault I can find is the horizon goes through his head rather than, say, further down. But the lighting, scene and subject are all great. -- Colin (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support I am willing to accept that this photographer has sufficient consent for hosting this on Commons and having it featured. Re-use would be a different issue. I think the personality rights template addresses those consent and re-use issues well enough for our mandate. Particulalry given this is such a lovely picture. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose This is fakeSupport I tried to make a joke, however, I am learning the meaning of English humor. Pardon the misunderstanding. Very nice work Christopher, Now, talking seriously. I hope to see future work with the same quality and effort, congratulations --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure to understand in what this link to my blog is meant to support your statement, so... I guess this is a joke, right? :) -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Wilfredo, Christopher's blog is a little confusing but I think he is saying the gradient in the sky and the perfect reflections in his photographs look like a faked Photoshop image. But they aren't (I trust). -- Colin (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Aaaah, the reference to the Photoshopped joke... I thought it was an obvious one :) -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Never easy to grab the specific humour of each, especially with a big scary red “oppose” notation, but that's all good with me. Thanks for the kind comment (as well as everyone else's)! -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I am sorry, a hoax. I was hoping to see enough votes in favor to little influence over the ratings. If ever you are coming to take photos in Brazil, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Technical image quality not convincing --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Question Uoaei1, Like for the picture below, would you develop? Especially, how is this picture (which you supported) better technically? - Benh (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Do I have to defend my vote?! Well, looking at the face it looks quite soft. And the noise in the homogenous areas is also significant. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- You don't have to... it's counted anyways. But it's more of a courtesy, and "technically wrong" could mean anything (and so means nothing). When I'm yelled at, I like to know why. And I'm just surprised a 16mpix picture which isn't that soft (IMO, and nothing sharpening can't fix) isn't as good as a 3mpix. - Benh (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support Despite my "bitching" regarding consent above I kinda agree with Saffron Blaze. --Slaunger (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support Subject, composition, and color all work for me, though could wish for sharper detail on the monk. Is ISO 800 a bit high for that camera? Perhaps shutter at 1/60 with ISO 400 would have been better. Kbh3rd (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Fuji's X-trans sensors are pretty good at handling noise, even though there are some drawback like lost of details during demosaicing (which can be considered noise somehow...). ISO 800 is not a problem in my experience, but this was processed with Lightroom and author used default values, which are known to render soft. - Benh (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have a tripod and therefore I have my camera hand-handled. When I used to shot with my Hasselblad 500 C/M, I didn't mind going as low a 1/30s since the body is quite heavy and hence more stable. But with this small and light Fuji X100S, I avoid as much as possible going slower than 1/125s or there would be too many chances for me to slightly move and get a blurry picture. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support Moedling1997 (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 16:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People