Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Nikon Z 5 with Nikkor 50mm f1.8S

Nikon Z 5 with Nikkor 50mm f1.8S, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2022 at 08:28:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

• 
  Front view with Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 S
• 
  Rear view with opened memory card compartment

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Florstein -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm a bit sad to oppose despite what seems like valiant effort. I don't think products photo works with short focal (and thus converging lines). And the lighting could be softer. It's good otherwise, so a bit of a shame. - Benh (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment Looks good to me, but please clone out stray bits of dirt from the white portions of the photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek:  Done --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment Have to agree with Benh, the perspective distortion due to short distance somehow ruins an otherwise excellent effort. In the front view, it makes the lens look too huge and the body smallish. Compare with this one showing no converging lines. Maybe this could be fixed by software but needs to be done IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 16:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Your photo is simply advertising photomanipulation, I guess. My photos - focus stacked only. --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It’s not "my photo" ;-) it’s from the official Nikon image database. I didn’t intend to advertise anything, and it wasn’t even meant as a counternomination, it was just to show that the proportions of the lens (yes, I know, it’s a different one) and the body can be shown in a much more balanced way. There is no manipulation needed, just a bit more distance. Sorry if it came across as an insult. You might have noticed that I said these pictures are otherwise excellent. --Kreuzschnabel 21:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kreuzschnabel: no, it's okay, it's not an insult. But the official photo is too perfect and "inanimate" to me. My photos are not perfect geometrically, but alive. --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Kreuzschnabel, your link is to a computer generated rendering, not an actual photo. -- Colin (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I am fully aware of that. I am talking about perspective, not perfection on surface cleanness. The rendering has been done from a more distant (maybe infinite) viewpoint, showing the lens and body at their respective sizes. The photo nominated does not. I just wanted to give an example this is not necessarily so. Whether or not one may consider this a drawback is a matter of taste of course, and as far as I’m concerned, I do. --Kreuzschnabel 12:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Support Maybe because I'm not much of a photographer and don't necessarily go by conventions in photography, I like these photos and find them impressive enough to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --A.Savin 11:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support While I agree that a longer photo length than 50mm equivalent would be more appealing, proportion wise, in the first photo, I think claims it is "ruined" are exaggerated. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Ivar (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Neutral While it's good executed it's at the end of the day a common subject with good (but not extraordinary) sharpness and no additional pluses (like lighting). I'm not wowed but still nice. --Poco a poco (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Question But I'm wondering ... was this a genuinely white background or did you just cut it out? If the latter, great job doing that, but why not a transparent background instead? Daniel Case (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: thanks for your vote! Yes, I cut out the background. I've been cutting out backgrounds in Photoshop since 2001. :-) And, yes, we have the version with transparent background (for special needs). --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose I cannot see how cut-out images like this can be among our best. I don't see them as 'live' images. For the set, I would prefer symmetry in PoV - here the angle is different. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above, nothing special for FP nomination, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Submissions should be judged against the standards of their genre. This is clearly an attempt in straight, online shop style product photography. That's not art or nature documentary, it's technical. Some editing to gain a plain white background is exactly what you would expect here. For me, it ticks all the relevant boxes: a dust-free, well-lit subject shot from useful angles, sharp where it needs to be. And if you think there's no "wow" in that, maybe try getting it right yourself - you might be surprised. --El Grafo (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@El Grafo: thank you so much! Very kind and useful words! --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Support The amount of effort that was put into perfecting the photo is amazing. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Optical_devices