Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tripterygion.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Tripterygion.JPG, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2016 at 10:26:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
Info created and nominated by --Gronk (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC) }}
Support--Gronk (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)- Welcome, and thanks for nominating a photo. However, I will
Oppose this time, because the depth of field is too shallow for my taste (only the head is fairly sharp), and I don't love the composition (it would be better to have more space to the left of the head, as that's the direction the fish would seem to the viewer to be going in, and all the blur to the right really doesn't help anything, compositionally, to my mind). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment @ Ikan Kekek. The picture is a portrait or at least a close view of the fish, thus shallow dof is obvious. You can catch the whole body of the fish from above or by a lateral view, but it would result banal. Having placed the head of the fish in the first third of the image from left and having faded the rest of the body is a way to enhance dynamism. The blur appearance contributes to this effect. Instead, if the subject was more centered, as you suggested, the composition would have been poorer and less dynamic.--Gronk (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Thanks for clearly explaining your point of view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Unfortunately not so sharp and significant chromatic noise. I am also concerned with shallow DoF. Charles (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose A VI in all likelihood given its wide use, but not an FP and probably not even a QI, for the issues noted above, particularly the color noise. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Daniel. INeverCry 21:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 20:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
