Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Jackplug wb.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[edit]

Voting period : from 27 Sep 2008 to 6 Oct 2008 (included)

[edit]

A gold plated stereo jackplug

 Comment No upsize or downsize was done, it would of course look much sharper if I downsized it but our guidelines say that we should not do that. Postprocessing has been spot and noise removal and I slightly reduced three highligts and adjusted the white balace a bit. It was quite difficult to get the light right for this as the shiny metal easily made burned out highligts during the 8 second exposure. I ended up with using three light sources and moved the strongest one in an arc behind the camera during the exposure to create a more even light. I understand your concern about if this should be FP of course there are more beautiful subjects, but all are difficult in their own way. Sharpness was also a challange, I used both mirror lock up and remote shutter. In my oppinion we have many featured macros of nature objects but not that many of "things". /Daniel78 (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realise it's not upsized, but wanted to point out that the picture as only tiny blotchs, and not pixels (sorry I don't know how to explain better). Strange. As a result, downsampled version wouldn't not lose much information I believe. And if something can be downsampled, we should go ahead I believe. Space drive is not free ;). I'm surprised you had to remove noise from a Nikon D300 picture ; why did you use ISO 200 by the way ? Benh (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well there was not much noise, and nothing visible on the jackplug (just in the background), perhaps it was the background that caused it as it was a black paper with some texture that was not in focus ? Anyway ISO 200 is actually the lowest on the D300 although there are lower modes called LO, but as I recall it those modes do not follow the standard for ISO ratings (color reproduction and other measurements I guess) and therefore it is not using the ISO numbers just like the reason that above ISO 3200 and up to 6400 it is called HI instead of using the numbers. About downsampling there seem to be different oppinions here, some thinks it's ok and some think you should never do it. But as of now our guidelines do say that the highest possible resoultion should be used, if that is not the case it should be rephrased. And keeping the highest resolution is good in the way that it leaves the option of downsampling to the user of the image, after downsampling you can not get the original back. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Overall sharpness is quite good, but the edges are not as clear as I would desire. Background is too “warm”, it could be darker and the hue should be complementary to the plug's golden colour. Third, I do not like the lighting, I would prefer more diffuse light sources. --Romwriter (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the background and the plug could be better separated, perhaps I should try to play with that. But to me the jackplug should not be warmer, I have it in front of me and if something this image looks too cold. Not sure why everyone think it's the opposite :) I would also like to try with more diffuse light sources, but I had none available. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Modified white balance (no votes, please)
White balance corrected
White balance corrected
result: 2 supports, 5 opposes, 1 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Jackplug_wb.jpg&oldid=15103338"