Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kiernan Shipka at PaleyFest 2014 HQ.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Kiernan Shipka at PaleyFest 2014 HQ.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2015 at 17:02:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Dominick Dusseault - uploaded by Tabercil from Flickr - nominated by Tabercil -- Tabercil (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Tabercil (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment This is a higher quality version of the Kiernan Shipka at PaleyFest. Tabercil (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry Tabercil but isn't a good job,noise everywhere --LivioAndronico talk 18:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I own Canon Rebels that are to either side of the one Dominic used to shoot with - I know from experience that ISO 3200 adds more noise than I prefer to my own shots. Still think this a damn nice shot though... Tabercil (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Surely it is a nice picture but not featurable for me --LivioAndronico talk 20:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- How does this compare to other FPC photos of portraits? I could be convinced to change my vote if my impression of other recent portraits was proven false. -- Ram-Man 20:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose We've had some pretty decent portraits in FPC recently and while this is a nice portrait, it's not of high enough quality or as good as some others. -- Ram-Man 19:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Thanks for making the effort to get hold of a higher resolution portrait. Not surprising it is this noisy at ISO 3200. It would have been better to go for a larger aperture to bring down the ISO (and noise). Still a good portrait though with very nice light. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- A larger aperture isn't an option on that lens at 250mm. And considering this is equivalent to 400mm on a full-frame camera, the 1/200s exposure is about as slow as one could risk. So I think this is about as good as one could achieve in the circumstances. It is a lovely photo and at "for web use" resolutions the noise is absolutely not a problem. But not enough to achieve FP. -- Colin (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed - that was taken at max distance and fastest aperture (f/5.6) possible using that lens. About the only thing I think could've been done using the equipment he had was to maybe drop the ISO down to 1600 (which is as high I'll go with my Rebels in terms of ISO) and drop the shutter speed a bit to maybe 1/125 or 1/160 in order to let more light in to compensate. You're starting to run the risk of getting shots that aren't pin sharp though, and it'll probably be dark enough that you'll need to do some Photoshop work to brighten it up with the risk of introducing artifacts that way. Tabercil (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I should maybe have clarified that it would have been better to use a lens, which allowed a larger aperture. Anyway, I feel a bit sorry for having to oppose as I feel the best possible outcome has been produced with the gear at hand. I have nominated it at COM:VIC as the best image within the scope of Kiernan Shipka. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed - that was taken at max distance and fastest aperture (f/5.6) possible using that lens. About the only thing I think could've been done using the equipment he had was to maybe drop the ISO down to 1600 (which is as high I'll go with my Rebels in terms of ISO) and drop the shutter speed a bit to maybe 1/125 or 1/160 in order to let more light in to compensate. You're starting to run the risk of getting shots that aren't pin sharp though, and it'll probably be dark enough that you'll need to do some Photoshop work to brighten it up with the risk of introducing artifacts that way. Tabercil (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- A larger aperture isn't an option on that lens at 250mm. And considering this is equivalent to 400mm on a full-frame camera, the 1/200s exposure is about as slow as one could risk. So I think this is about as good as one could achieve in the circumstances. It is a lovely photo and at "for web use" resolutions the noise is absolutely not a problem. But not enough to achieve FP. -- Colin (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose noisy and unsharp. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 16:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
