Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sugi

Sugi cone[edit]

Reason: Beautiful macro shot of this pine's cone.
Articles this image appears in: Cryptomeria
Creator: User:Pengo (self nom)

Support as nominator — Pengo 14:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I hate to be the first to comment about the shallow DOF, but someone is always first... --Janke | Talk 21:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm witholding support for lighting and composotion reasons, but I have to say there's not a DOF problem here. It seems to have been focussed as well as could be expected for a non-bracketed macro and was shot at f29! mikaul^talk 00:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it was shot at f29 and it is focussed well, does not make is as sharp as I would like to see... Check it in full size, only the front of the cone is sharp, and there are some ugly "hairs" on it, to boot. These defects don't show in 800 px size. --Janke | Talk 07:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did! It's probably not as sharp as it could be because it was shot at f29 (v few lenses do their best stuff stopped right down) but ~~the DOF really couldn't get any better without focus bracketing~~ I just looked again and I think it may have been autofocussed, which would mean the optimum DOF maybe wasn't achieved, although it's still not "shallow"" by any means. While I don't think the hairs are necessarily a defect and the OOF bits of the main subject are resolved well enough maybe your objection has more weight than I first thought. mikaul^talk 13:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auto focusing has no effect whatsoever on the DOF, only the focal point. --Fir0002 03:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what he meant. Autofocus will set the center of the DOF at the front of the subject. Manual focusing enables you to use the DOF creatively, maximizing the subject area that lies within the DOF. Agree? --Janke | Talk 07:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Max DOF means you choosing the focal point, not the camera. There is no AF system which can figure the hyperfocal distance so MF is crucial in macro shots like this one. Even if it was focussed 5mm further (than the nearest subject detail, as you say) there would be considerably fewer OOF elements in the main subject. mikaul^talk 13:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is beginning to grow on me as an image. I might be tempted to support a suitably cropped version, although the original problem I had with the composition was the way a more mature cone is just a tiny bit too far out of frame to add that extra encyclopedic value. mikaul^talk 13:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - was this lit by flash, by any chance? mikaul^talk 13:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Ring/dual flash. —Pengo 02:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What model? --Fir0002 03:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Composition is not optimal and image is diffraction-limited, but otherwise it's good. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a nice and clear macro image, illustrates the subject well, and it just looks good, nice resolution aswell.Yzmo ^talk 15:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate shot added Don't know if it addresses many of the issues above, but I've added an alternate shot (shows a bit more of the more mature cone, but DOF is similar I think). Also if anyone wants to have a go at cropping/editing either one, please feel free. —Pengo 02:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose both, sorry. Mick is spot-on about the DOF and I find the lighting just a little harsh - maybe a half-stop or so less flash would have helped. It's an OK image but I suspect you can do better with that equipment. Compositionally, I prefer the first. --YFB ¿ 23:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support original, Oppose alternative I do not like the composition of the alternative, the cone is crammed into the frame, and the background isn't well balanced (the brown in the lower right erks me). Also, the flash is a little bit too harsh in the alt. As for the original, the concerns about DOF are valid, but a bit nitpicky. It seems like to marginally improve the image would require a more than marginal improvement in equipment (I don't think a simple reshoot would improve the DoF enough, but maybe a $2,000 lens would), so acknowledging the flaws, I'm going to throw a weak support behind the original because the image is well framed, and the subject is clear, and the composition is good, and the exposure is decent.-Andrew c 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]