Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Valais Cup 2013 - OM-FC Porto 13-07-2013 - Brice Samba en extension.jpg

File:Valais Cup 2013 - OM-FC Porto 13-07-2013 - Brice Samba en extension.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2013 at 11:14:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Valais Cup 2013 - OM-FC Porto 13-07-2013 - Brice Samba en extension.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Valais Cup 2013 - OM-FC Porto 13-07-2013 - Brice Samba en extension.jpg

•  Info created by Pleclown - uploaded by Pleclown - nominated by Pleclown -- Pleclown (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pleclown (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support slightly tilted? FP anyway! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Joydeep _Talk 13:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Technically excellent, but composition leaves a lot to be desired. The background is far too busy; I can't see the subject right away and this is not an issue that could be solved by cropping, unfortunately. I also can't see a ball, so it's hard to tell if the keeper is just jumping up for the hell of it or actually making or attempting to make a save. Daniel Case (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

  The ball is on the goal frame. Pleclown (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

And for this picture to even begin to get into the office, you wouldn't have had to tell me that. Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you that, but you're the first one to tell me that they don't see the ball. And a lot of people have seen this picture. Pleclown (talk) 05:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Even I had difficulty working out where the ball is which tells you that all though you wanted to frame it right it's too noisy. Flickrworker (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

And just because other people didn't tell you that doesn't mean they saw it. Daniel Case (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose Background too busy, the player is basically hidden in detail. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Would what you except to be in the background? That's just the regular sceneray for a soccer game. Tomer T (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • It could be either blurred, in the shade (with the foreground in the sun), it could be grass (photo from an elevated position) or it could be the trees on the left (photo from further to the right). Aside from that, the fact that no better photo was possible doesn't mean it should be FP. If the composition is bad, it's bad. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
•  CommentTomer, in this type of photography the use of long lenses and wide apertures is what is needed to blurr the backgroung and stop the action, thus separating the distracting backgrounds and concentrating on the subject. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment In this case, the tilt should be fixed. Imo it would look much nicer. Is there CA on his pants? Just a little detail, I know, but if it can be improved, it's not hard. --Kadellar (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

  I've tried to correct the tilt. Pleclown (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose Background too sharp, blending player with background. the sacle relationship player-background is not adequate. The position of the ball is uncertain, there is no definitiveness as to whether it went in or not. Ball and player too small. Tilted. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

  I've tried to correct the tilt. I don't understand the need of "definitiveness as to whether it went in or not", but one can see that the ball is on the frame, slightly distorting it, thus not in.

  For the background, there is little I can do. I already was at the max aperture of my lense (f/2.8). I'm quite puzzled how the background can be this "sharp" at this aperture, but hey.

  Pleclown (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment read about Henry Cartier Bresson's "precise moment" it applies to action photography.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this was the Moment. But it's only my opinion. Pleclown (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose These three images apparently from the same match, and taken by other contributors here, show how to use dof and fl to define the players properly.

• 
• 
• 
• 

A more expensive lens isn't actually necessary to get better results. There seems to be greenery to the left of the image, so moving 50 feet to your right would have done the trick and we'd be able to see the player better. Penyulap ☏ 06:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• You are comparing results made with a full frame body, I think (DoF is lower for the same framing on a FF). --PierreSelim (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC), PS: moreover this pictures are done at 200mm --PierreSelim (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Support FP for me, impressive action, good timing, and the player does separate from the white background behind him. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support FP to me. Right moment. Kyro (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. Quality is good. The positions of ball and goal-keeper are fantastic. I think it's ok for a FP. Ludo (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Quality is ok and the timing is perfect. Pyb (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Joydeep _Talk 18:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports