Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Tomato scanned.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Tomato scanned.jpg - not featured
[edit]
- Scanned! From Flickr,
Nominate
--pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Support --pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Ss181292 11:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC) -- background should not be dark.- Oppose black background, too dark, leaves cut MGo 12:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Background too dark. Interesing, but not enough good quality. historicair 12:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment It's a scan, people! How else can you get the colours so bright without having the background so black? pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- What do you mean without having the background so black? - it is black! By the way, I am very sceptical about the claim that this is a scan. Has anyone here ever scanned a three-dimensional object with a comparable result? MGo 15:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well how can it be "too dark"? If you are skeptical then how do you imagine this image was taken? Maybe it was scanned and edited to make the background blacker, the colours brighter, I don't know... I can't imagine how else it would have been taken though. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Quick lesson to scan a 3D object with a black background you either place a black cloth over the object, you use a box with the inside painted black or even a darkened room. As there no pressure points a box was the most likely method. The reason you can tell its a scan is the dust on the glass and the lines in the black Gnangarra
- Well how can it be "too dark"? If you are skeptical then how do you imagine this image was taken? Maybe it was scanned and edited to make the background blacker, the colours brighter, I don't know... I can't imagine how else it would have been taken though. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- In the meantime I have made some experiments with my own scanner. As a result of this I am no longer sceptical and now believe that this picture is a scan. But scanning, however, is not the best method to create an image of tomatoes. Those parts of the tomato which have a greater distance from the glass get too little light and are therefore too dark. Apart from this inevitable disadvantage of scanning there is also too much dirt visible and the leaves are unnecessarily cut. So my opposing vote stands. MGo 17:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- What do you mean without having the background so black? - it is black! By the way, I am very sceptical about the claim that this is a scan. Has anyone here ever scanned a three-dimensional object with a comparable result? MGo 15:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Too much dirt in the black areas and on the leaves, cut at top and bottom. --Pumbaa 15:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - dust on glass and scan lines Gnangarra 13:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Tbc 09:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC) scanning is not the most optimal method to make images of 3D-objects
- Oppose - Interesting experience, but not worth being a "Featured Picture" -- Fabien1309 20:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Fabian1309 Pjotr 10:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- skINMATE 15:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Whyis exactly a fruit scanned? A simple 3D object I would support, but a fruit? No way! It looks fake!
Freedom to share 18:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Friday 12:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
2 support, 10 oppose --> not featured Roger McLassus 17:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
