Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tepic fruit stand.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2010 at 23:40:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question I wonder if the graininess we can notice throughout the picture is caused by .jpg compression artifacts. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question There is CA visible at the fruits in the upper right corner. Can you remove it? --Simonizer (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nice colours but far too noisy. —kallerna™ 14:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Is grain unacceptable in analog photography? Could grain be an element of design? Could there ever be a scale of acceptable grain or will it always be a subjective evaluation? Did critics of analog photography put a magnifying glass to every image looking for grain? When choosing a car does one look at the underside to see if it is aesthetically appealing? Does an out of focused part of an image ruin the entire image? It could, or it could not. A photograph is a collection of elements, and very, very seldom will they all be at their technically best. Noise is the digital version of grain. Grain/noise is a result of ISO. ISO is a result of light conditions most of the time. There has always been grain/noise, there will always be grain/noise. Whether it works or not will largely depend on the degree of magnification/reproduction and viewing distance. Even the most grainless/noisless image will show grain/noise at certain magnification. Let´s throw Robert Capa´s work into the trash... too grainy ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment No, Grain is fine. Especially in analog photographs. We sometimes added grain to digital images to make them look less sterile (in print). There is really no point in zooming to 100% and then to say, ahh, but it has grain. This image, downsampled to 3000x2000 px has grain directly comparable to digital images. But it makes no sense to downsaple it just that the "grain comments" stay away. --Amada44 (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I really like the colors, and I don't mind the noise in this case. --Lošmi (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Welcome back, Tomas! I have missed your photography! Especially i am hoping to see more of your people photography in the near future. I really love the idea with the composition in this photo. It seems for me though that the colors have been tweaked, for instance, that the fruits have an increased stauration or that the background has been selectively desaturated? If something has been done to tweak it, i think it would be relevant to mention on the file page. I don't know what has happened but the fruits look a little too colorful IMO. Concerning noise, it does seem a little excessive, although I actually perceive a lot of it as texture. I was wondering if an overall better photo could be acheived by selectively desaturating the BG elements quite a bit, and then also decrease the saturation a little on the fruit to remove some of the perceived articifiality that I get from it - that would probably also reduce the noise problems to a more reasonable level? --Slaunger (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slaunger: Thanks for the welcome! This is the scoop on this pic: light conditions low, hence ISO 800, hence noise, hand held camera; autolevels in PS, middle tones adjusted for more saturation, background as is, not unsaturated, sharpened and added contrast. Normal darkroom procedures, 45 sec adjusting all. The original capture of the camera, due to chip bias, WB, etc., etc., is not a true reflexion of the scene, and even less of what the brain sees. So I adjusted image to reflect what my brain saw, my vision. Color fidelity in anycase is never right, too many variables. Image is as I like it noise and all. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, thanks for explaining what you have done. Now, I did you a favor by correcting a spelling mistake in one of your categories. Now, would you be so kind to add the editing details in a {{Retouched}} template to the file description, because that is where they belong. As I recall you are usually, let's say, quite laid back concerning the image descriptions and categorization of your photos, thus I am asking you kindly hoping to motivate you. Meanwhile, I will consider your reply and think about my vote... --Slaunger (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seeing on my talk page that you do not consider your edit a "retouch" - which I can follow - it is of course OK just to add a description of the editing steps in the description, such that others curious to understand how this photo was realized could learn about it. --Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, Ok,... done...--Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Thanks. --Slaunger (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Tepic_fruit_stand.jpg&oldid=34617221"