Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sig Sauer boîte outils chargeur .jpg

File:Sig Sauer boîte outils chargeur .jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 22:42:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Sig Sauer boîte outils chargeur .jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sig Sauer boîte outils chargeur .jpg

•  Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jebulon (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Par curiosité, pourquoi peut-on y lire "propriété de l'état"? -- Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Puis-je répondre en anglais pour le bénéfice des autres "reviewers" ? May I answer in english for other reviewers ? Please have a look on the file description page. This weapon is used (as less as possible !) by all the homeland security forces in France (National Police, Gendarmerie, Custom Department, Correction Department). The specimen here is used by a member of these forces (notice that the engraved identification numbers were masked by me for evident security reasons), and then "belongs to the State" ("Propriété de l'Etat"). Thanks for support.--Jebulon (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Good shot, and would support outside the case. Takes too much space. And nice gun btw! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for support. What is shown is not only the gun itself, but all concerning it, even the "packaging". I made this choice for an encyclopedical use, and I agree it probably mays take too much space. But it is so... Maybe, if possible, I'll took soon another closer shot (funny word in this case !) with the weapon only.--Jebulon (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment -- Something weird with the "yellows". Why do they look all fuzzy? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- Yes, that is my problem and I don't know how to solve it. The orange-yellow parts are very harsh in real, and there is a reflection on the grey plastic foam (good english word ?), in real too. I tried to reduce the "fuzz", as you say, but there is nothing I can do against reflection. Improvements ideas (I use GIMP) are welcome. Thanks for review anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose not very sharp and has some nasty glare on it (al, flash, etc. ???). a second try would be nice if possible. has high ev though. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 19:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I didn't use flash, Where do you see "nasty glare" ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment "nasty glare" is referring to the red reflections which can be seen in the foam. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose poor composition, the orange part draws most of the attention if you look at the picture, while the main object of this picture is/should be the gun. Gorgo (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO, the composition cannot be poor, because there is no composition. It is as it is. (OK for nasty orange glare noticed by Peter Weis)--Jebulon (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose--Hetpaardindegang (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Would you please explain why, dear horse ? I should be happy to do better in your opinion next time, but I need your opinion for this...Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Weak support --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Aren't images ment to be educational? I don't see how this has any educational quality. Thomas888b (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Welcome and thanks for review. You should surely find FPC project more interesting if you read the FPC guidelines (only few minutes) (after reading the welcome page of "Commons", useful too).--Jebulon (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • On reflection (wow, please notice the nice english "pun" ! Lol), I think I could surely make a better photo of this kind of object. Thanks to all reviewers, especially to supporters, but  I withdraw my nomination --Jebulon (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)