Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Glowring3.JPG

Image:Glowring3.JPG

•  Info created by Bgran - uploaded by Bgran - nominated by Bgran

Wide view (left) - not featured

•  Oppose too black, too tiny, too empty Lycaon 00:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, I don't know what this is and can't read German. - Alvesgaspar 10:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment: Dear Alvesgaspar, in my opinion you have to view an image at full-size resolution for judging. If you do so, there is also an english translation and explanation. Also the thumbnail is now bilingual. Any comments regarding my picture? - Greetings, Bgran
  • I always appreciate the pictures in full size. Yes, now I can see it is a radioluminescent keychain. Agree with Lycaon: too black, too tiny, too empty. On the other side, I can't see relevant encyclopedic value. - Alvesgaspar 11:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too dark, bad composition. norro 16:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose only 800x533px. Ss181292 22:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Overlord 23:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose unfortunate composition --City Slicker 20:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment. This could be a better picture if the subject would be depicted a bit bigger. The image has to be dark in order to see the luminescence and this page is not about encyclopedic value. Anywho, I think the subject is fairly interesting and I do see relevant encyclopedic value. Do you have another version or the posibility to reshoot? --Dschwen 22:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment: Yes, there is a possibility to reshoot. I will place the keychain in the center of the picture and try to minimize the darkness on the sides. But as Dschwen said, it has to be dark, otherwise you won´t see anything. I will post the new image today in the evening. Greetings, Bgran
•  Info The image has been edited, I hope it fits your conceivabilities now. Bgran

0 support, 6 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 11:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Closeup (right) - not featured

•  Comment This is a much better picture. In order to reduce some grain and noise, I would reduce its size a bit. - Alvesgaspar 23:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Support. The noise and grain is within limits. I'd leave the size as it is, downsampling can be performed if really necessary for a particular application of the picture. --Dschwen 06:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
•  Support I think I like it. Technically good photo. No need to resample. Ss181292 14:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose norro 17:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose Two much grain and noise for a FP. - Alvesgaspar 21:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope peoople look at the image before voting instead of relying on coments like the one above. I honestly have no idea how Alves gets this impression. Especially for a shot under difficult light conditions the noise is very low and the grain barely noticable. --Dschwen 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment Thank you for the compliment. As a newbie here (but not to photography, I’m afraid), I feel really flattered for all the attention given to my humble opinions. Honestly (we are talking here of intellectual honesty, of course), I believe this picture does not deserve a FP status. As I have said before in another discussion, there is little excuse for not producing an optimal shot when we have controlled conditions. In the present case, and because the subject does not have any exceptional interest, it is expected the picture to be technically perfect. I gave the opportunity to the author to improve the image a little before using my vote. If he had decided to do that, I probably wouldn’t have opposed the nomination. Alvesgaspar 20:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You are entitled to your opinion, I was merely pointing out the descrepancy between that opinion and fact. --Dschwen 21:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

2 support, 2 oppose > not featured Alvesgaspar 11:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)