Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Inimese peatäi.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2024 at 18:09:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Pediculidae (Lice)
Info created by Janeklass - uploaded by Janeklass - nominated by Janeklass -- Janeklass (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Support -- Janeklass (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- I modified this file a little. I didn't do anything with the lighting, but I cropped it a little and changed the aspect ratio from 2:3 to 4:5 Janeklass (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment Perhaps a bit dark? Cmao20 (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Underexposed Yes, though the picture looks interesting -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's impossible to agree with the claim that this image is underexposed. This is clearly proven by the excellent visibility of every detail on the head louse's body - its tiny hairs, complex body texture, and even various color shades. The dark, almost black background is not an exposure error, but rather serves to highlight the main subject more clearly. The image's tonality is well balanced - we can clearly see details in both lighter and darker areas, confirming that the exposure is not incorrect. This lighting choice is intentional here, designed to give the image a slightly dramatic effect. If the picture were truly underexposed, we wouldn't be able to see such fine details and color tones that are now clearly visible. Janeklass (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Disagree. You will see more details if the photo is better exposed. Currently the contrasts are very hard to distinguish, especially at thumbnail size.
- Note that you can also see a lot of details here, although the photo is underexposed too. And that one was properly fixed.
- Hard to hear that "it's impossible to agree with the claim that this image is underexposed" while the two first reviewers here both find the image too dark :-) Then above you write "This lighting choice is intentional here, designed to give the image a slightly dramatic effect" (by the way, I don't understand this dramatic intention. It's just a close-up of an animal, no special background / context). Sorry, clear light problem for me, in state -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have responded to the criticism and want the evaluators to know that the lighting choice here is clearly intentional. How you choose to evaluate it is up to you. Janeklass (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per above. Please fix the light as you did here -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- The subjects are different and unfortunately the same approach cannot be applied here. Increasing the light would also amplify surface reflections and this would ruin the image completely Janeklass (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think so, but the same was said here. At least one stop could be easily gained in that case IMO -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think this would cause more issues for the image. Unfortunately, I can't make those changes to this photo. This image stays as is. If there's no support... no worries, I'll try with another photo in the future (maybe) :D Janeklass (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think so, but the same was said here. At least one stop could be easily gained in that case IMO -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It is too dark for my eyes. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support It is a very fascinating image. The darkness is not a problem, as the object is clearly seen, and that seems more like a creative choice on this dark creature. I am thinking that maybe a square format would be better for this image... but I'm not sure. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry. I agree that there are dark photographs which do not tolerate an increasure of the exposure – reproductions of dark paintings, some gloomy atmospheric landcape photographs, low-key photos etc. However I fail to see why this would apply to this photo, despite of the explanations. I have played a bit with this JPEG file and can confirm that a careful increase of the brightness works very well when at the same time the light parts are dialed down a bit. If you have a raw image or a 16 bit TIFF file, this should work even better. Of course you have all right to keep your photo as you think it should be (so keep it!), but I cannot support it here. Sorry again, – Aristeas (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- As I mentioned before, this solution was intentional. I did try making changes but wasn't satisfied with the result. I can see that opinions are divided on this one - and I suppose not everyone has to like the picture. It's clear that I won't get much support for this image, but that's okay. I'm already looking forward to when this period ends and I can submit my next works 🙂 Janeklass (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Weak support but I agree it should be brightened. if it fails, anyone could just upload a new [separate] version and nominate it. — Rhododendrites talk | 22:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 03:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Aristeas Poco a poco (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
