Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Markovi Kuli, hill in Macedonia.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Markovi Kuli, hill in Macedonia.JPG, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2015 at 11:25:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Lenivongeleva - uploaded by Lenivongeleva - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Neutral I really like natural colors here, but in the full resolution, image is very unsharp/blurry. D kuba (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)- Neutral A little too dark. --Tremonist (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I share D kubas's opinion. Far from FP standards.--Jebulon (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)- Oppose Unsharp due to inappropriate choice of aperture (f/2.8). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per King. Aperture and exposure time don't make sense here --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Aperture/exposure doesn't make sense? Inappropriate choice on aperture? Could you please explain it to my why is it inappropriate and doesn't make sense.--Donninigeorgia (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- A relatively large aperture (f/2.8) was used. In general, for landscapes a smaller aperture of f/8 or so are preferred (note that larger number = smaller aperture). The smaller the aperture, the more that's in focus. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- With f2.8 and 50mm the distance to infinite focus (hyper focal distance) is about 30 meters. The object in this picture is further than 30 meters, I think. So your argument is not valid, in my opinion. --Donninigeorgia (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment We don't know what exactly the photographer focused on. Besides: Large apertures tend to provide only limited sharpness in general. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)- From personal experience, anything at the hyperfocal distance (whatever that might be for a particular photo) is going to too unsharp for FPC. And besides, lenses have generally poor corner performance at large apertures regardless of focus. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- With f2.8 and 50mm the distance to infinite focus (hyper focal distance) is about 30 meters. The object in this picture is further than 30 meters, I think. So your argument is not valid, in my opinion. --Donninigeorgia (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- A relatively large aperture (f/2.8) was used. In general, for landscapes a smaller aperture of f/8 or so are preferred (note that larger number = smaller aperture). The smaller the aperture, the more that's in focus. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Info EOS Kiss X4(550D) with f/2.8 and 50mm, Hyperfocal distance = 46.6 meters. I think they can know that in this site. This info can help you? --Laitche (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Info I believe you all already know that but I've tried to get the subject distance to this hill from Google Maps and Satellite with this photo(this subject is the lower part, the left side) + altitude(they can get the sea level from the Google Maps) then the subject distance is about 35m - 45m, What if the subject distance = 40 meters, the near limit of DOF = 21.5 meters. And the bottom part of this photo is about 5m - 8m (presumption) so lower area of this photo is out of focus. But of course it's not 100% sure because I can't get the camera location and the angle exactly. --Laitche (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
See how ridiculous that is. The photograph is unsharp from top to bottom. If you find the picture not sharp then just say it's not sharp and don't talk about things you don't know. Maybe the dof is too shallow, maybe the lens is not sharp at 2.8. You can take landscapes with large aperture and even with shallow dof. Sometimes the shallow dof is like the dot over the i in landscape photograph, the completion of composition. Sometimes the dof is infinite at 2.8. And sometimes the lens is really sharp at 2.8!! Let go the rules of thumb, these rules kill the creativity. And don't look at the data when judging the picture. Look at he picture! My suggestion to you all. --Donninigeorgia (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with you. --Laitche (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sometimes I see the similar things in a museum of art, in my country there are very detail descriptions by each painting in a museum, they are reading the descriptions takes 2 or 3 minutes after that they look at the painting but only 5 seconds... and go to the next painting, so I think What! why they don't look at the paintings, it's a museum not a library... --Laitche (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The JPG is unsharp at 100%, but it is 18MP so that can be downsized. At 10MP it looks sharp enough. Are we encouraging folk to upload downsized images just to pass the pixel peepers? I agree that f/2.8 seems an odd choice for a landscape like this where one typically wants front-to-back sharpness and there is plenty light. The lens is a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II so it is slightly stopped down and the reviews claim peak sharpness is around f/5.6. Unfortunately, the EXIF data has failed to capture the focus distance, though the EXIFTOOL helpfully confirms the hyperfocal distance is 46.74 m. But the whole DoF judgement makes assumptions about viewing distance and print size. This could still be printed fairly large and look sharp. While I agree one mustn't review the EXIF rather than the picture, one mustn't also just review the pixels rather than the picture. A discussion of what mistakes may have been made isn't unhealthy in itself. It's a perfectly decent "moutaintop on a sunny day" photo, but I'm not really feeling wowed by it. -- Colin (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
