Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Olympus Zuiko OM 50 mm lens.jpg

File:Olympus Zuiko OM 50 mm lens.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2015 at 10:26:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Olympus Zuiko OM 50 mm lens.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Olympus Zuiko OM 50 mm lens.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
•  Info Lens Olympus Zuiko OM 50 mm f/1.8 with visible 6 diaphragm blades which create aperture opening. Set to f/2.8 where blades are best seen. Stack of 2 photos.
•  Support -- Mile (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Bad crop, the bottom of the lens is chopped off. Sorry. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Info Its embedded (on soft surface), not choped. And it looks better than done on desk, which i did also. So will stay as it is. --Mile (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Maybe "bad crop" was a bad choice of words, but the lens is still "chopped" by the soft surface, which I feel interferes with its circular shape. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment The circular shape of the lens is not fully visible due to its being embedded, all right. This doesn't disturb me. The main problem is that the viewer imagines the circular shape's continuation that would take place outside the photo. This means the photo should not have been cropped this way, a little more of the soft surface should be visible, enough at least to close the circle. --Tremonist (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Tremonist and Bruce1ee. Additionally the background looks unfortunate. It should be clearer, I think. The upper corners look like vignetting. A plain white background would have been the better choice, I think. Sorry - but I suppose you can easily repeat this shot? --Code (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose A good candidate for COM:VI, COM:QI and probably FPC at Wikipedia, but for Commons' FPC it's lacking something that sets it apart from all the other good pictures of photographic lenses. In other words: No "Wow". --El Grafo (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC) P.S. Lets go back to churches.

Alternative

•  Info Here is alternative, if you like it roundish. But i still prefer first one. --Mile (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

 Comment Look, Mile, the lens does not need to be fully visible, but the circle needs to be closed in mind, thus the size of the picture would have to meet these requirements as stated above. Concerning this alternative, the background is entirely blurred and heterogenous, while a simple white wall or sheet of paper would have provided the contrast wished for. Don't you think so? Greetings, --Tremonist (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: Or, alternatively, it isn't possible to depict what is behind the lens in focus (by making use of the lens)? --Tremonist (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose looks more pleasing than the other alternative, but still no "wow" for me. Also, the focus is somehow uneven with the letters at the top of the ring being less sharp than at the bottom. --El Grafo (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

•  I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)