Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vertebre dorsale Montfort.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Vertebre dorsale Montfort.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2011 at 19:47:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Support Of course, in Commons, we fight with words. Violence is our heritage. I have long hesitated to show this picture because it does not argue in our favor.. -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose The object itself is meritorious for its historical value, but the photographic execution is in this case unfortunate. Studio shots shoud be of impecable photographic technique, for all variables can be controlled. In this case front and side lighting, in a 1:3 ratio should have been used to enhance texture and volume, instead of unflattering front flat lighting. The digital seamless looks too fake. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)- The exaggeration of your criticism, demonstrates the absurdity. There are no flash but 6 LED lights disposed for there to have a minimum of shadows. We are not in a photograph art, but scientific picture. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- *
Comment I fail to see the exaggeration or the absurdity of my criticism. It is pretty objective, and I took the time to suggest how you may have improve it, but apparently you took issue with that. A bad photograph of any subject, scientific or otherwise is still a bad photograph. You confirm what I said: lighting disposed in such a way as to eliminate shadows. Shadows give texture and volume to subjects, enhancing the visual effect. The way to photographically, and scientifically represent this subject better is to have differential lighting in order to better represent texture and volume. If you claim that this is a scientific photograph, well, that is your prerogative, but scientific photography is not exempt from good photo studio techniques nor does it negate good solid photography. Another thing that this “scientific” photograph is missing is that of a scale, so the viewer can get an idea of its size. Right now it is just a bad photograph of an interesting subject.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thomas you are right. I'll do it again.--Archaeodontosaurus 05:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support Detailed and well focused. Иван (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Lacking sharpness, as the holes in the bone can´t be seen properly and the picture looks a bit flat too.--Snaevar (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose As Snaevar. --Karelj (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --Archaeodontosaurus 05:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
