Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2018 at 11:45:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:People at the customer service desk in IKEA Torp Uddevalla.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:People at the customer service desk in IKEA Torp Uddevalla.jpg
Info Ok, I admit that this nomination is a complete gamble, but it is also a good representation of ordinary life in Sweden. Waiting in an IKEA store with flatpacks and all. -- Cart(talk)11:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose OK ... I'm sorry if this sounds insulting, but the quality here is nowhere near FP level. The noise, the lack of sharpness, it's not even QI material, this. I'm tempted to FPX it, to be brutally honest. That said, I do quite like the idea of having some depictions of everyday life in FPC, so if you can get some better quality images of scenes like this, I would certainly consider supporting those.--Peulle (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
About noise/grain in photos (sometimes Cart talks too much...)
No insult taken, I know you look mainly at technical quality. The noise is not even as bad as in some other FPCs or even FPs. It's the price you pay for taking photos indoors of moving people without flash or studio lights. I suggest you try doing some such photos yourself (even if you don't publish them here), that way you can see what level of noise is possible. It is something very different from outdoor photos where the light is good or indoor photos of static objects. That is why people downsize such photos. Thank you for your kind words about the subject though, I thought that would be the main problem with this. --Cart(talk)14:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't think photos with this level of noise should be FPs, I'm afraid. If I shoot images like this, I don't even upload them unless the topic is extremely rare or special. Like "famous person falling in the pool" kind of special. That could give me enough wow to overlook the quality issues. Incidentally, I notice that the noise was the main topic of debate in that FP you linked to. I guess it comes down to whether the voters think the level of wow factor is high enough to compensate. On a side note: why not just use a flash? I think I will.--Peulle (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking just like you (noise=no FP) until I started to try it myself. It was Granada's sports photos and all the critique she had to put up with that got me doing it. I was naïve and thought "How hard can it be?" Well, I found out just how hard it was. Now, I look at under what conditions a photo was taken before I judge the noise. If we want every FP to be razor-sharp regardless of the shooting conditions, we miss a lot of situations where real life is happening and FP becomes a collection of very static images. Image quality is always relative. As to why no flash: I've experimented a lot with that too. A flash can be good but many times it is a sure way of ruining a good composition. Had I used a flash here, it would not have been strong enough to cover the whole length of the room. Since low light means you have to use a low f-setting and therefore end up with a shallow DoF, it does help if you take the photo from a distance and thereby increase the DoF. In this situation, it would mean that the only lit part would be the butt of the woman closest to the camera. The other persons would end up in semi-darkness. Here part of the compo is the repetition of the couples, the younger couple (unknowingly) mimics the older, giving us a hint that in 30 years that could be them. So it is important to have the scene evenly lit. Another thing that can improve your chances of a good shot in situations like this, is that you put your camera on "rapid fire". A subject may blink in one photo but have his/her eyes open in the next. This is part of such a series. This is impossible to do with a normal flash since it has to re-charge between photos. Even if these little hints doesn't make you more sympathetic to this photo, please keep them in mind for the next indoors nom that pops up. That way we get a wider selection of more interesting photos. --Cart(talk)15:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, please also take size into consideration. The seal photo that is proclaimed to be so sharp by everyone, is taken with ISO 800, so much grainier that this with ISO 500, but it is downsized to 3000x2000px to get it sharp and noise-free, this photo is not. Maybe I too should start downsizing my photos since no one seems to mind that anymore? --Cart(talk)15:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise issue notwithstanding, two people with their backs to the camera is not generally a good start for FP status. I do see what you were thinking, though ... I am sort of pleased to see that Swedes actually still do shop at IKEA.Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info Ok, I admit that this nomination is a complete gamble, but it is also a good representation of ordinary life in Sweden. Waiting in an IKEA store with flatpacks and all. -- Cart (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Support -- Cart (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose OK ... I'm sorry if this sounds insulting, but the quality here is nowhere near FP level. The noise, the lack of sharpness, it's not even QI material, this. I'm tempted to FPX it, to be brutally honest. That said, I do quite like the idea of having some depictions of everyday life in FPC, so if you can get some better quality images of scenes like this, I would certainly consider supporting those.--Peulle (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Like I said, it was a gamble. :) Thanks for your time and comments. --Cart (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
