Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kyanite.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Kyanite.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2010 at 01:53:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info All by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Question I'm not sure if the bright / blue / grey parts are the result of very direct (flash?) lighting or the natural colour of the mineral. Do you have the opportunity to take an image with softer light (and softer shadows)? --Pjt56 (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - partially unsharp. Would also prefer a scale. Jonathunder (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)- Oppose Lighting issues. Steven Walling 00:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- What don't you like about the lighting? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Specifically I think the flash was much too harsh. Steven Walling 07:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- What don't you like about the lighting? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Question Looking at the very bottom-right, is the image cut off, or was it cut that way? As for the lighting, is the shiny golden part actually golden in color like that, or is it more of the result of the flash? ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 01:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose bad light, and partially unsharp.--Jebulon (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Alternative
[edit]
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Support This version has the scale added. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment I do like the added scale. However, I wish that the label was a bit larger, as it cannot be seen unless the picture is fairly enlarged (and even when it is seen on the file page, it could be misread as a 2, which is what I did at first). ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 01:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)- Support --LadyofHats (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose specimen low quality lighting part may be improved. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- How? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- To the cyanide part is colored by iron oxides is not of good quality. But here it is not a major problem. There is a mixture of color temperature on this photo (hot and cold on the left side of the law. Daylight left and right flash? I do not know. This same room with two flashes in the dark will be perfect.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose bad light. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per other opponents.----Jebulon (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Question Could you please tell me what is wrong with the light? Maybe then I can fix it with a computer. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment HFSW, the problem with the lighting is that it is harsh and face on. This type of harsh front lighting flattens the subject. In contrast, softer, side lighting, gives the subject volume, texture and can differenciate the tonal range of the colors of the subject. When using side ligthing, one has to consider the ratio of illumination between the main source and the fill source, keeping it at about 3:1 ratio in order to take advantage of both, the tonal range of the subject and the dynamic range of the image. This of course is considering a "normal" subject, with tonal values in the middle range. With subjects with tonal values in the upper or lowes side of the luminosoty scale one has to adjust accordingly. Read a little about lighting and lighting situations and a briefer on zone system photography. There is plenty of material on the web. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
