Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:- Schlumbergera trunctata -.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:- Schlumbergera trunctata -.jpg, not featured[edit]
Info created and uploaded by - nominated by Nino Barbieri --Nino Barbieri 10:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
CommentShot with a Canon 300D, maybe the best one can get with it. --Nino Barbieri 05:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Support Sharp details, nice background. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Jeses (talk • contribs) --22:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)- Support - MPF 00:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support - --Arad 01:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Over exposed stamens and other parts - loss of detail. Also cutout background has resulted in fine details (that should be visible at this res) missing like little spiky hairs from those angular corners of the cacti --Tony Wills 11:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks, your critic is correct! --Nino Barbieri 13:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I totally like it, the background goes well with the main composition. I'd totally support a newer version without the overexposed parts. Good work. --Atoma 20:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Merci bien! Encourageant.--Nino Barbieri 04:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral great shot, but parts of flower are overexposed, other - too dark --Leafnode 08:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support If this picture is not high enough quality for a featured picture, then our standards are much higher than is shown by previous featured pictures. Take beautiful flower pictures like this and this for example. In this image the highlights are not clipped and any less exposure would be too dark. If anything more dynamic range would be helpful, but I think it is excellent and looks fine at relatively large magnification of 11"x16" @ 100dpi and a 18" viewing distance. I don't know what kind of camera was used to take this picture, but I don't think we require the dynamic range or resolution of film to get a featured picture. -- Ram-Man 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment You need to strip out the artificial background before examining the histogram to see what is clipped. But clearly there is a loss of detail, for instance compare the very nice detail on the lower petals to the white featureless areas on some of the upper petals and stem of the flower. I expect photos of stationary objects, taken under controlled conditions to be of very high quality :-) --Tony Wills 22:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I went back and looked at the picture again, and there are three or four discrete steps of tonal detail in the histogram in the blown-out white petal that would be considered "featureless". Not much, for sure, and there is a decent chunk of it that was a single tone, but it was definitely not clipped around the highlights. Notice in my comment that I was talking only about clipping, which did not occur, as there is brighter detail elsewhere in the image. The background was irrelevent as I was looking directly at the highlight threshold. Your assertion that images under controlled situations should be judged more strictly is interesting and I certainly respect that opinion, but I don't think it's a serious problem in this image. That's why we all give our own opinions. Perhaps I should be more strict. -- Ram-Man 00:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- CommentI thank you all for the all the many words, appreciative or not. Anyway the picture has stirred a little interest and discussion and that was my goal. It was taken with a Canon 300D, no tripod and window light, the background was done with a very simple graphic program. I don’t care if a line is slight tilt or if the corner of the leaves has not the little hairs, for me is more important the visual impression, the feeling that a picture awake at a first look. You are all very motivating people. So long --Nino Barbieri 04:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I went back and looked at the picture again, and there are three or four discrete steps of tonal detail in the histogram in the blown-out white petal that would be considered "featureless". Not much, for sure, and there is a decent chunk of it that was a single tone, but it was definitely not clipped around the highlights. Notice in my comment that I was talking only about clipping, which did not occur, as there is brighter detail elsewhere in the image. The background was irrelevent as I was looking directly at the highlight threshold. Your assertion that images under controlled situations should be judged more strictly is interesting and I certainly respect that opinion, but I don't think it's a serious problem in this image. That's why we all give our own opinions. Perhaps I should be more strict. -- Ram-Man 00:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Fake background and poor masking job. I might consider supporting the original or a better Photoshop job. ~ trialsanderrors 08:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Trialsanderrors. --MichaelMaggs 06:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
