Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panasonic Lumix DMC-G80.jpg

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2016 at 07:24:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-G85/G80
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical devices
  •  Info Panasonic Lumix DMC-G85/G80, stacked shot. My work. --Mile (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Mile (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Poor choice of brand ;-). Seriously, though, I have to compare this to my own File:Sony A77 II.jpg. While it is a useful encyclopaedic image, there are several flaws. The camera is not spotlessly clean, which is expected for this kind of shot -- very hard to achieve with even a slightly used camera unless you go over it all carefully removing all dust. The lens hood means we can't see the front of the lens, which is often a photogenic part of a camera photo, with discs of light and colour playing with the glass. Your purple carpet is really distracting. I think the lighting is harsh. I assume from a small light source, leading to two hotspots on the controls. The effect of this light on the top of the camera makes it look horribly plasticy whereas I believe this is a premium camera. The lighting doesn't bring out the shape of the camera, instead we have to infer this from the lines and curves making up the plastic surface. Compare how broad softbox lighting defines the shape on the Sony photo. Compare also how the lighting on the Sony photo brings out the texture of the leather-effect parts vs the "dead flesh" on the Lumix photo.
I don't think the focus stacking has been successful here and question the need for it. If the exif is right, you used f/4 which seems a very odd choice if you want depth of focus and there are stacking artefacts in places and strange, abrupt transitions in/out of focus. I think if you stack then use a smaller aperture to minimise the stacking frames and help avoid artefacts, and you need to get the whole camera and lens in the stack -- here parts of the lens just look weirdly blurred rather than any natural focus transition. The furtherest away control dial just looks like it got blurred next to the other sharp controls. -- Colin (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Colin Stacking error, show me Colin, your anotations were answered there, check them. f/4...on 45 mm Colin (you missed that right ?), it makes DOF as f/8 at 60mm at my distance. How come that was OK ? And this is not APS-C sesnor, its μ4/3. No, it cant be solved with single shot, as you did here: File:Sony A77 II.jpg. We cant see your control panel on rigth side, neither LCD, and its out of focus, your crop there isnt good, camera is too much to right side, and you should shot more from higher level. Thats much about lens there than camera. --Mile (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I can find faults in the Sony photo too. Using a more telephoto lens was suggested at FP. If shot again, I'd probably try using a rim/hair light to separate it from the background. I'd figure out how to get the lens coatings to show colourfully. I'm happy with the angle as I have File:Sony A77 II - top.jpg and File:Sony A77 II - rear.jpg to show off the top and back panels. I know your sensor is micro 4/3 but f4 is still not optimal for DoF which is what you wanted to achieve with stacking. It seems like you are scared to use smaller aperture because you read about diffraction and think your lens is sharper wider open, but one has to balance these laboratory concepts with trying to take a picture where the focus works -- we expect a subject to go gradually out of focus, and a bad focus stack unfortunately causes patchy focus effect. I think you are concentrating too much on a pixel-peepers technique (focus stacking) and not enough on the basics -- lighting, preparing the product and positioning the product so that the background/base is not distracting or enhances the subject. -- Colin (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 just a observation "a useful encyclopaedic image" it's not a criteria... this is not a FP of some WP... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 14:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rodrigo.Argenton agree it isn't part of the criteria, though "value" (whatever that means to you, on an educational project designed primarily but not solely to illustrate Wikipedia) is. I used the word "encyclopaedic" partly because there seemed to be more of an effort to making everything in focus, as though this was a specimen identification image of a bird or butterfly, than to make a great image. My aim with the Sony photo, was to create an image like one sees the manufacture and magazines use: it should be attractive and enticing rather than merely functional. -- Colin (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Rodrigo : Now Colin answered you. For instance, nice camera on white back might be good to show to a kid from primary school. My option will be chosen for magazines, www, books. Perhaps that is The Photographer request if i am correct, to put it on white ? Sure not, white to become FP and this unFP is never a question - i choose this. But OK, someday might some do on white back. Not me - i would loose my drama effect. --Mile (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I preffer a night or 90% black --The Photographer 17:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well Photographer, Pope wears Velvet. What can i do. I think color combo is good. --Mile (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could cut the camera and put it in a photoshop layer and add another layer with a color less dark, remember that it's only my opinion. A hug --The Photographer 18:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Humm, Mile, for a magazine it's far from good... This may improve our photography. And you can see at the end that photo of the aubergine have a high educational value, and this wow factor that is expected of a FP... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Let there be Light"...God said. I know, light is 1A importance. I was some month ago for lights, but were too much for me, and where to put them. Must get softbox first. --Mile (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-G80.jpg&oldid=223651351"