Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fernsehturm St. Chrischona - November 2014.jpg

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

File:Fernsehturm St. Chrischona - November 2014.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2014 at 19:11:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

TV Tower St. Chrischona near Basel, Switzerland
sorry, but I can't see s.th. significant or a fault (this is a single shot) --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, its not significant at all, I just wanted to explain what my really little concerns are. In any case, its FP for me. I know, you are a perfectionist and your own detractor (at least with pictures ;-).--Hubertl (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an antenna but a TV Tower; and as I explained a very notable one. If you dislike the object it's not a valid point for an oppose of the picture IMO. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Antenna , TV , tower, don't know in your country but Italy is full .... and who says it isn't a good reason? For me there is nothing special, if you think it can't oppose not think it's in the guidelines.Regards.--LivioAndronico talk 15:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ready my note carefully and your answer is needless. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wladyslaw,needless else is here --LivioAndronico talk 20:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Persons who are not able or willing do make a difference between a TV Tower and an antenna should be spare with instructions. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe other people should concentrate more on useful things that the antennas Clin --LivioAndronico talk 21:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For sure we don't need your disrespectful comment here. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're too nervous, accepts the criticism and not think that what others say is useless and you the only one to understand something, this game bored me --LivioAndronico talk 08:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose There’s something wrong with the sharpness. While the top of the tower is crisp sharp and highly detailed, the trees below the tower are very blurry, but the near trees on the right are sharp again, so it’s not a DoF issue (which would be surprising at f/8 and 24 mm). I find that rather distracting. On the compositional site, it’s a good image but a bit too straightforward, leading to lack of wow. --Kreuzschnabel 18:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the focus is for sure on the main object (the tower) and not the trees. Apart from that I can't realize a problem with the sharpness, your are the first until now. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the focus is on the main object (as I already wrote, if you just read more carefully). I just wonder why foreground and main object are both equally sharp while another area between their distances is unsharp. --Kreuzschnabel 21:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I read your note carefully. A single shot can never be in every pixel in high sharpness. To claim a every-pixel-high-sharpness is not realistic. This you should now. I see no problem for the picture quality because of some not very sharp tree branches that are not main object. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you obviously didn’t read carefully enough. The point is: I just wonder why foreground and main object are both equally sharp while another area between their distances is unsharp – the antennas are of excellent sharpness, and so are the foreground trees, but the trees below the tower (which are closer than the antenna!) are not. Of course a single shot cannot be sharp in every pixel, but if the DoF is sufficient to show both antenna top and foreground trees sharp, then the bottom trees, the distance of which is in between, should be sharp too. This picture appears to have two different focal distances, that’s what distracts me. --Kreuzschnabel 04:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the 24-70, this lens shows tons of field curvature at 24, so large parts outside the center will actually be focused closer than the center, therefore nearer objects will be sharper than expected, while far-away subjects are not very sharp at 100% (not that I would describe this as an issue here). This is an example (on a DX!, even worse on a FX)--DXR (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the first matter-of-fact answer to my question! That really explains it, so it’s a weakness of the lens used. As for my opinion about the image, though it’s altogether nice, this one issue still distracts me too much to support. --Kreuzschnabel 08:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is quite absurd to attest one of the best Nikkor lenses lacking sharpness. No more reason for me to take your comments serious. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not discussing your lens, I am discussing this very image. Though the blurred area in it is clearly visible, you keep saying it can’t be there because this is one of the best Nikkor lenses, and anyone saying it’s there can’t be serious. One of the two of us is really making a fool of himself. --Kreuzschnabel 12:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a fool belife that a single shoot had to be in every pixel accurate sharply. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the farthest and the closest object in a single frame are sharp, the depth of field covers the entire frame, and so everything in between should be sharp too. --Kreuzschnabel 04:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer Talk / Im. / Fav. 12:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Fernsehturm_St._Chrischona_-_November_2014.jpg&oldid=140133851"