Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:LEI0010 200 Leica AF-C1 Produziert von Minolta Front view-9756-Bearbeitet.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2015 at 16:19:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info all by Kameraprojekt Graz 2015- Info Leica AF-C1 (1989–1991) in cooperation with Minolta . It was the first Leica-Compactcamera 1:2,8 - 5,6. Focus stacking from 14 single pictures
Support -- Kameraprojekt Graz 2015 (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment there are two faint grey stripes above the camera you might want to remove (see image note). --El Grafo (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Danke für den Hinweis, El Grafo! Erledigt! --Kameraprojekt Graz 2015 (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Done, thanks! --El Grafo (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 04:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support I Leica this! Daniel Case (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- We have hundreds of similar images of cameras on white backgrounds and we even have some very good images of thiy camery type in Category:Leica AF-C1, so why should this one be featured? 1) Technical quality is superb. 2) The camera is so clean, it almost looks like it came right out of its box. 3) The lighting setup works very well for me. 4) The reflection and that little bit of shadow on the surface: It's not just hovering around in empty space. 5) Apart from having the famous red dot on it (probably mostly for marketing reasons as it's actually a modified Minolta AF-Tele Super), the camera itself doesn't really look too sexy to me. From afar it looks like how a typical 35mm point-and-shoot used to look a few decades ago, but upon closer investigation it's starting to look interesting. Can't really put my finger on it though, maybe it's the rippled surface … All in all, the "wow" doesn't really jump in your face, but I think it's still worth supporting. --El Grafo (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Neutral Great quality of an photo studio shot. The subject itself has little wow to me. Poco2 17:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)- Support Up to now I have not seen any other focus stacked images nominated here that convinced me that much as the photos created at the project Kameraprojekt Graz 2015 - even not those of chemical elements :) As El Grafo said the quality is outstanding and will be a benchmark for product photography as the Diliff's are for church interior photos. It would be instructive to provide some background information regarding the shooting technique, light setup and especially the focus stacking process (software, number of images, ...). You could use the
{{Photo}}template for it. I really appreciate the approach to create photos of historical cameras in that quality. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC) - Neutral I agree with Poco. I hope we will not have soon here a bunch of technically excellent pics of cameras... Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment How many images of a genre are allowed? Is there then a possible restriction for churches in general, Church ceiling, interior views of churches, exteriors of churches Details of churches, waterfronts, snail shells, paintings, cars, aircrafts, flowers and insects? --Hubertl 22:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support Agree with Hubertl. If we have 100 or 1.000 FP-worthy pictures of cameras (or another certain genre like churches), then we should promote all of them. If someone is feeling bored he or she should feel free to abstain from voting. Regarding this one in particular: The camera itself is not the most beautiful one, but the image quality is outstanding and the educational value is very high. FP, of course. --Code (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- I waited for these reactions... Please let me remain free of expressing my opinion here. I did not oppose. No need to be so rude nor agressive. About this kind of picture, I would say : very good work, yes, but once you've got the tip...--Jebulon (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Which part of my comment was "rude" or "aggressive"? Of course you are free to express whatever you want. Am I not free to do the same? --Code (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
