Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fauno bailando (color), Museo Sorolla.jpg/2

File:Fauno bailando (color), Museo Sorolla.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2018 at 19:25:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Fauno bailando (color), Museo Sorolla.jpg/2 Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fauno bailando (color), Museo Sorolla.jpg/2

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
•  Info created by Nerve net - uploaded by Nerve net - nominated by Nerve net -- Nerve net (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Nerve net (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry but this image is far from the quality expected from one of the finest images on Commons. It's not sufficiently sharp. Also, the nomination should be categorized. Please peruse the Guidelines to see what is required of images of high quality. --Peulle (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Info Striked since the FPX was contested and turned this into a double vote. This comment should have been made inside the FPX template and not as a separate vote to avoid technical double voting if the template is contested. --Cart (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the image is of too low quality to feature.--Peulle (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Support I think this deserves a second look. This picture has bee taken with a Soft focus lens – a type of lens that in analog times was once used for creating "dreamy" effects in portrait photography. With the Tamron lens in question, you can even adjust the amount of softness. The glowing softness is thus intentional and not a defect but done on purpose. I think this image shows the use of such a lens exceptionally well with an interesting subject, utilizing the background to create a weird and busy bokeh effect. I like it. --El Grafo (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment That may be right, but there is still a lot of chroma noise and purple CA on the statue. --Cart (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think that this is noise from digital signal processing. Imho it's more likely to be of optical origin – small scale chromatic aberrations on the surface of the statue. I'm not sure how well that could be corrected in post processing, and I would argue that attempting to do so would obfuscate a characteristic of the lens used. In any case, please keep in mind that this lens was constructed for 135 film that was typically printed at 10×15 cm (4×6 in). I think you could easily print this at A4 size without noticing the color issues. There also seems to be quite a bit of vignetting going on, but I'd consider that a feature in this case. --El Grafo (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Support as per El Grafo. --Yann (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose No FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Why, Ermell? In my case, I find it too soft, regardless of the intent of the photographer (it's just not fun to look at, IMO), and the head doesn't have enough light on it - I want it to be highlighted, but instead, the light is more on the torso. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

 Info - Hi all. I'm the Author of the picture. First I wish to thank you for discussing and sharing your opinions. As mentioned above, in this picture I'm using an old manual lens, the Tamron SP 70-150mm f/2.8 SOFT with Adaptall-2 mount, this is a soft focus lens from the early '80. Normally when I use such manual lenses I do not remove digitally their "character" or "uniqueness" letting show, in an honest way, how it performs and more important, how it plays with the light. This lens cannot compete with current lenses in any aspect, it only can capture nice "soft" pictures, it cannot resolve fine details on my 21mpx camera body and shows up chromatic aberrations. So why? I can only say that I like how it behaves in this case. - Nerve net

•  Support after much consideration. I feel a bit torn here... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment Too bad the legs are cut, I feel that we're missing a part of the statue. Interesting lens, but the result also gives an impression of out of focus all the way -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, even if this is due a chosen soft lens, it doesn't wow me enough to overlook the technical result. --Cart (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)