Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Тавче Гравче.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Тавче Гравче.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2018 at 13:59:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tavče gravče traditionally served with long hot peppers
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Food
  •  Info created by Cuklev - uploaded by Cuklev - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Overprocessed.--Peulle (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Food photography is one of our weak spots. I'd like to see more like this. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Definitely a useful VI, but nothing exceptional about the composition, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Tomer T (talk) 12:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support At 100% it looks a little over-sharpened, but at 30MP that's no concern. Composition is fine and fairly standard for food photography, with the brown-grey background helping highlight the colourful food. I think there's a few other photos in this person's upload log that look FP worthy. -- Colin (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I have no problems with the composition—the colors are nice and earthy, the burlap nicely emphasizes the rustic quality that it seems the photographer wanted. But, per Peulle, I have problems with processing. The wood planks in the background should at least look like wood; I like the rest of the photo well enough that I would have given them a pass on slight unsharpness. However, this wood looks like it's disintegrating into pixels, like something that cannot be explained by a photographer's choice to focus on his subject. Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nice but oversharpened. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peulle, Daniel, Basotxerri, I am wondering why you think the oversharpening is an issue in a 30MP photo. Sure, it's a flaw and we could suggest it be processed differently. But I can only see it at 100% at which point this image is 170cm tall, which is 5x the height of my 27" monitor and would break through the ceiling in my study. Is it fair to judge such a huge image from a 30cm distance? It could be printed at 300dpi at A2 poster size, a resolution so fine that pixel-level "flaws" are invisible. Compare downsized a bit to 7MP and I don't see any issue, and that downsize is still well well above our minimum threshold and a level where many people would support if nominated as an "uploaded from Flickr" candidate. The wood does look like wood, unless I'm looking at them with the equivalent of an electronic magnifying glass. We neither need or even want the wood to be in focus, as it should not be getting our attention, which is on the colourful food. So why are we concerned with oversharpened wood, which isn't even the subject? I wonder if we have got so in the habit of looking for flaws, and flaws we think could be fixed like noise, CA, sharping, and assuming that means those flows should and must be fixed, and then we mistake "I'd have processed this differently" from, "This image has important flaws that prevent it being used". Picking on pixel flaws is an easy game that doesn't even require any artistic or photographic appreciation or ability.
This particular composition might not be everyone's taste, but I look at the photographer's upload log and see many images that would easily illustrate a quality cook book (as I think this would with no problem at all). They are all a bit oversharpened, hence my concern that we could miss out on several FP food photos if we keep being only concerned about the pixels. We have very little pro-quality food photography on Commons, and here's a new photographer with pro-level photos and they get pixel peeped to death by people who've never shot any food photography at that level. It would be nice to have one of these "Wiki loves ___" competitions generate some new regulars at FP, but currently I can't see any reason why a pro photographer would bother joining us. -- Colin (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I have no problem with the food. I do have a problem with the wood looking like a pointilist painting, like it isn't even wood. Sure it's not the subject, but in a 40MB image like this with a rather short DoF you expect it to look like wood, even unsharp wood. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, if it looks like a "pointilist painting" to you, then you are looking at it far far too closely. I am really really struggling to not see perfectly ordinary wood. All you are noticing are pixel-level over-sharpening artefacts. If printed at A4 size for a glossy magazine, there would be 574 pixels per inch, which is double the 200-300 ppi needed for high quality colour printing. So the issue you think stops this being featured would vanish below physical printing limits. A 30MP image far exceeds the resolution needed for most purposes. Most food photos don't even fill A4, but are smaller to leave room for recipes. Why are you punishing the uploader for not downsizing to 6MP, which I know you'd support without question? The only reason you can see these artefacts is because your browser lets you magnify the image to 100ppi. If I took a 3x magnifying glass to a magazine, I'd see the dots too. -- Colin (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, if the image was going to turn out like this at its current resolution, it should have been downsized (but, it is true, we strongly encourage uploading at the highest resolution available, for reasons none of us argue with, so maybe this is on us). And perhaps the sharpening could have been applied just to the food if that was desired? It could have been cropped out, but I kind of like the pseudo-vignetting the corners create. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik(talk) 21:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink#Food
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Тавче_Гравче.jpg&oldid=330112105"