Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Puvar 20080220-1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Puvar 20080220-1.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2010 at 14:08:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created & uploaded by Haros, nominated by Jovianeye -- JovianEye (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Support -- JovianEye (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)- Support I like the composition. --Citron (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I like the composition too, but imho dof is too short and there are several dustspots in the sky. --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment You were right about the dust spots. I have removed most of them. As far the DOF goes, the metadata has f/10 which I dont believe is too shallow. The reason why the background appears out-of-focus is because of the rising sand due the strong wind conditions. --JovianEye (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Better now. Some dustspots remained at the left border. The rising sand should be mentioned in the description. I hope the lens survived the sand. --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support While the image does have a short DOF, in my opinion, it is not necessarily a bad thing in this case. I like it, as it focuses on one specific item out of many identical ones. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 19:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - The focus seems fine to me, and the composition is quite nice (especially with the birds). However, I have several concerns, among them the fact that I'm not sure what I'm looking at, and the file description is vague. These are obviously boats of some kind, but why so many lined up along the shore? Also, I'm not very fond of the lighting situation; the closest boat, which is presumably the main subject, is darkened by its own shadow to the point where much of the detail is invisible. Finally, the image is either tilted or distorted, as the sea shouldn't tilt downwards. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per Juliancolton. Jonathunder (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support Comment The composition is good. Combination of horizon and vanishing point is well balanced. The point Juliancolton made about the focus of the view is reasonable: if cropping this via rules of thirds (cropping out from left to right until approx. where the vanishing point is) solves this issue. Using ISO 320 here is disputable though. In a daylight situation, even if photographed out of hand this should be avoided. Note the CA on the bird - removing this in post processing should as well be reconsidered. The sea tilting downwards could easily be corrected (a rotation of 1.2° would be sufficient). Applying these changes for another version of the image using the OOC image (RAW if available) would be great.--Peter Weis (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Karel (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support I think I will support my own picture, although when I took it, I just saw the scene, took the picture and did not process it as far as I can remember (except correcting the time in the exif). The boats are probably for fishing as this is in Kerala in a small village. The picture indeed has a rotation of approximately 1 degree, possibly 1.2 as Peter Weis indicates. I don't remember any rising sand just where I was, and the lens has been used for a five digit number of pictures since. (I do not have a raw version of this unfortunately.) Haros (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places
