Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reineckeia eusculpta 01.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Reineckeia eusculpta 01.JPG, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2011 at 10:08:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
A Middle Jurassic Ammonite, Reineckeia eusculpta
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)- Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Gives an unsharp impression and the masking is to crisp cut. W.S. 06:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Crisp Masking? The Ammonite was photographed in some distance in front of a black background, as descibed here: http://www.femorale.com.br/femorale/phototips.asp. --Llez (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Some minor noise but good. -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 08:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Shrapless. Why f/18 in plane shot ? --Mile (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Plane? Ammonites are 3-dimensional objects. --Llez (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- How about setting a scale beside, to get real feeling about it. You know, like mugshots. Would be better than dim. stated in description. How much of 3rd dimension did You get at this perspective ? --Mile (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Diameter (as indicated in the description!) 7,5 cm, thickness about 2 cm (how to add a vertical scale for thickness?). --Llez (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- How about setting a scale beside, to get real feeling about it. You know, like mugshots. Would be better than dim. stated in description. How much of 3rd dimension did You get at this perspective ? --Mile (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Plane? Ammonites are 3-dimensional objects. --Llez (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support--shizhao (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I believe it could be sharper. I think f/18 is wrong setting for an object where almost all the relevant points fall into or are very close to the focal plane. - Benh (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- What would you suggest instead? I chose f/18 for the DOF was at the limit, but still acceptable --Llez (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd use the "sweet spot" of the lens. It's often at around f/8, and I don't think you'll get DOF issue with such setting. Only trying will let you know ;) - Benh (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- What would you suggest instead? I chose f/18 for the DOF was at the limit, but still acceptable --Llez (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per Benh--Snaevar (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
