Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Konica Auto S3 1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:2016 Konica Auto S3 1.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2017 at 15:27:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I'm sorry but... It is a very good photo, it is extremely sharp and well lit, in fact so good that you can see all the dirt, grime, dust, fingerprints and other yuk-y stuff on the camera. If I'm looking at such a good photo I really want to see a nice clean camera without any such disturbing elements. This cleaning usually has to be done in two stages: 'analogue' cleaning before shooting and the some additional dust-spotting and removing with the clone brush. In my book Colin still holds the award for cleanest FP camera, sadly the same can't be said for many of the other FP camera pics. --cart-Talk 19:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Old cameras are going to have dust, just like ruins or historical sites that are popular tourist attractions will have crowds of people. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Question - Are those really analogous? I'm tempted to oppose per cart's argument. I think it's quite possible to carefully clean an old camera; do you think it's not possible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Per Daniel. I wish this was a Minolta XE7 or XK, but you take what you can get... lNeverCry 08:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Yes it is a bit dusty but mainly the photo doesn't make me go wow. I think one has to have just a little extra to get FP. Like being super clean or having interesting lighting, and if the tabletop surface is visible, it needs to be more photogenic than white paper. The background isn't pure white, like File:Sony A77.jpg (another immaculate camera) which limits its use a little. I note that we do have a mix of cleanliness of older cameras at FP, with some worse than this and some immaculate. Evan-Amos is the expert at taking photos of vintage equipment that look like they have only just come out the box. My own camera was almost new when I photographed it, but still required cleaning to remove household dust that gathers within seconds, and a fair bit of software cleanup. The rear photo was particularly difficult, with the LCD screen, viewfinder and especially the rubber eyepiece attracting dust like a magnet. So I do appreciate this isn't easy. -- Colin (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - cart and Colin said it much better and in much more detail than I could. This is certainly a very good photo from a technical standpoint, and I don't think anyone would ever think of suggesting that it doesn't richly merit its status as a Valued and Quality Image. But I think the improvements they outline could and should be made for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
