Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dominostein edelherb.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Dominostein edelherb.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2010 at 00:15:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created, uploaded, nominated by Alchemist-hp -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose same vote like in German Wikipedia – a really good image but imo not featured, sorry --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)- Support Made my mouth water --Muhammad (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Actually quite lot of colour noise. But oppose because the lack of wow, definitely QI and maybe also VI. —kallerna™ 15:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, uninteresting subject. --патриот8790 (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support Engaging composition, quality background and lighting. Image is definitely educational and of high technical/compositional quality. Steven Walling 04:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support per Steven Walling --George Chernilevsky talk 08:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Neutral - I tend to agree with Steven, but I'm not fond of the background which looks unnatural. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment Just to clarify re: Julian's point, using a white background like that in a studio setting is a very common practice among professional photographers, and there are other FPs who have the same background. Steven Walling 16:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I know, but this one just looks a bit odd to me. Almost as if the chocolates were photoshopped onto a white background (which I know they weren't). –Juliancolton | Talk 17:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Info the image is real. It is made via focus stacking and the background is gaussian blur corrected. It's simply all. The Dominostein was taken at a white and smooth paper. Please look also for all my other images. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not doubting it's real, simply saying it looks a bit unusual to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, you are used to commercially Photoshopped photos. :) Diti the penguin — 14:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not doubting it's real, simply saying it looks a bit unusual to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I know, but this one just looks a bit odd to me. Almost as if the chocolates were photoshopped onto a white background (which I know they weren't). –Juliancolton | Talk 17:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - Lacks the "wow" factor. Maybe nominate it as a quality image? Tiptoety talk 18:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I keep coming back to this one. I think Support per Steven Walling is the decision. --Herby talk thyme 12:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose -i think it is a bit too simple for FP-LadyofHats (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- try to take a similar photo ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support per Steven Walling. Nikopol (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Croucrou (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support Somebody dares to do something very different at last ! agree with Steven Walling about technical and educational qualities. ----Jebulon (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support - very nice. Jonathunder (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I can not tell how big these are. I think that the image description should include the size. Snowmanradio (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Info done. The size are: about 25x25x23mm. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Support – I suspect that those who say it's "uninteresting" or "lacks the wow factor" have never eaten one. ;) Jayen466 16:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 04:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
