Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ford Mustang grille.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 14:42:22 (UTC)
- Reason
- It's eye caching, there's good composition it looks like that Mustang actually runs towards viewer.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Ford Mustang (first generation)
- FP category for this image
- Ford Mustang I
- Creator
- es:Usuario:Barahonasoria
- Support as nominator --SHAMAN 14:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose and suggest Speedy close. This is not close to the kind of quality required for a featured picture. The resolution is too low, there is a lot of noise, the highlights are completely blown, there is significant chromatic aberration (purple fringing) around the image edges and, arguably, the depth of field is too small. The subject is common so this picture would be easy to recreate but with the improved quality from a better camera. Zephyris Talk 17:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The post-processing, in order to reduce the resolution all the way to the bare-bones minimum of 1024 pixels wide seemed to have been been for the purpose of (trying to) obscure the lack of depth of field. Well, having the far side of the grill be outside of the DOF is one thing; having the tail-end of the emblem outside of the DOF is a flaw. Also, I see the camera was an Olympus from the C‑310 family. Yet, there is excessive lens flair between the mustang’s head and the top of the emblem (due to a bright-sky reflection off the top of the emblem) that appears to be the simple product of a dirty lens; it’s more of the sort of thing I would expect to see from an iPhone that’s been carried in a pocket for a week without cleaning. This subject matter would require the full attention of a talented photographer to make this an eye-catching image. It appears to have been shot in a garage with the car facing out into the driveway. This would have looked much better had it been shot under a tree at a park on a sunny day; then the 3‑D relief of mustang would have modeled the environment reflections of blue sky (off top-pointing surfaces), green fields (forward-facing geometry), and gray ground on lower-pointing surfaces. A proper surround is crucial for getting truly eye-catching results with mirror-like surfaces—something Alchemist has long mastered as evidenced by his noms of his reflective examples from the periodic table. This photo comes up far short on pretty much every critical element necessary for consideration as an FP. Greg L (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I think that it was cropped to focus on the subject. Depth of field - it's autofocus here. Anyway I believe that composition is good and picture does its job ("being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article.") as in an infobox at Mustang page one's unable to see all the nuances.SHAMAN 20:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose and support Speedy close. The resolution is insufficient, the image suffers from lens flare, the depth of field is insufficient (autofocus is not an acceptable reason since it is the f-number that controls depth of field), there is very noticeable chromatic aberration. The oblique angle delivers questionable encyclopedic value. The image is also not that eye catching. Given that the Ford Mustang is common and first-generation Mustangs can be seen frequently, surely a superior image may be taken. Also, the nominator has failed to provide a featured picture category. Purpy Pupple (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I know what the depth of field is and I believe that I could take good picture of it with my manual SLR camera only if the subject would be equally common where I live. Eye-cathiness is a discussable term.
- Given the opinions expressed here, Shaman, the best thing to do here would be to state that you are withdrawing the nomination. The shortcomings are impossible for the others to overlook and the odds of this passing are beyond remote. Greg L (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
