Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rose hips Rosa rugosa Hansa 3.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Rose hips Rosa rugosa Hansa 3.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2019 at 10:32:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Rosaceae
Info All by me, -- Cart (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Cart (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)- Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support Seven Pandas (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Just a QI -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)- Support Very nice. -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: lots of blown highlights, unfortunately. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Shiny objects will produce some totally white highlights, it is in the nature of light. I don't agree with the idea of toning down anything white in a photo to a dull gray. --Cart (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't agree with the idea of toning down anything white in a photo to a dull gray > Thank you! You are officially my hero Cart (but I can agree the light is a tad harsh, which is probably what Cosmonaut means. Wouldn't have hurt to use a reflector or wait for overcast weather) - Benh (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Benh (that would be heroine). ;) Me and Cosmonaut (formerly know as CCCP) have had these conversation about highlights before. Living in a dark part of the world I simply like bright parts in a photo if they occur naturally and can interact well with the rest of the photo for some reason. Btw, I forgot since you withdrew your bamboo photo. If you do a bit of color correction on the leaves to get the more natural colors, the white light doesn't appears so bright and "blown". I did a quick and dirty fix to check this: here. It does however change the whole color scheme in the photo and the Flickr/Instagram wow effect gets lost but it's more along the line of a FPC photo. I too like to keep cool light set by nature or play around with colors and things you can do in Photoshop, but FPC is very seldom the right venue for such experiments. (tried it, got burned) That's for sites more interested in artistry and further development of photography. --Cart (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes I remember I was a bit frustrated by how conservative FPC is. I can tell you after a long break that I feel a difference (and it's good). I was also working on a fix to my bamboo photo (this is work in progress). I don't really get feedbacks on Flickr, so hard to know when you go overboard. Here I learnt a few mistakes I did. Thank you for the comment and the picture heroine :) - Benh (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- First of all, once you highlights are truly blown, there isn't much you can do; toning them down to dull grey is certainly not a remedy. Regardless, there shouldn't be much white to begin with on low albedo objects like vegetation, it's not polished metal after all. For stationary objects that are easily accessible, we ought to expect technical aspects to be handled more diligently. In this case, it's simply a matter of too much light allowed to enter the camera. Choosing a higher f-number would likely have solved that, while also improving the depth of field. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- The Cosmonaut Not sure why you think a higher f-num fixes that... there are other ways to let less light enter the camera and as per below, this is the equivalent of shooting at f/11 on FF camera. - Benh (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Weak oppose DOF could be deeper (why f/4?). --Ivar (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Ivar, busy background so I wanted a shallow DoF, but please keep in mind that this is a small sensor bridge camera so f/4 roughly equals f/8 or f/9 on a full frame DSLR. --Cart (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- f/11 :) (2.73 crop factor). - Benh (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Tnx Benh! I was doing a rough guesstimate since I'm currently out traveling. --Cart (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Weak support Has its shortcomings but the colors are irresistible. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)- Oppose Area in focus has great detail but dof is indeed an issue. Furthermore I am not wowed by the subject Poco2 13:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Very sorry, but this doesn't appeal to me--Boothsift 00:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I thought I’d give it a look – though it’s quite ordinary a subject, it could be an extraordinary shot of it. Afraid it’s not. Red channel seems to be blown (turning into blue towards the glare spots), and the slightly-out-of-focus areas have an unnatural look as if having been oversharpened. DoF too shallow IMHO, the fruit could be overall sharp. --Kreuzschnabel 16:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 18:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
