Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 Pro.jpg

File:Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 Pro.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2023 at 10:58:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 Pro.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 Pro.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
•  Info Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 Pro backside. My shot. --Mile (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mile (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
•  Question Is there a reason for the lack of continuous sharpness?--Ermell (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
•  Regretful oppose Love the composition, but as noted there's far more that isn't sharp than is. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose exactly per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Call me a moron but I like it exactly for the limited DoF ;–). Product photos do not always need to be sharp from one end to the other, they can also emphasize the beauty (?) of the product by small DoF like in a portrait photograph. A totally sharp photo of this phone would be boring; the crop, the tilt and the small DoF make it interesting. --Aristeas (talk) 09:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
•  Weak support Per Daniel, but it’s still good for me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 13:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Daniel. -- Karelj (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose As much as I like the composition and the fact that the DoF complements the gradual fading of the coulours, at least the black bezel around the lenses should be in entirely in focus to make this a FP for me. --Virtual-Pano (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
•  Support I like very much the limited DoF me too. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
•  Support The shallow depth of field is a deliberate artistic choice which I actually like in this case. I find that makes the photo more vibrant and interesting than a totally sharp subject, as Aristeas wrote. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support per Aristeas.--MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)