Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM (version 2)

Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM (version 2)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 18:12:36 (UTC)

Reason: This follows the original nomination, which was speedily closed with the instruction to renominate when I thought I had the perfect shot. This production was quite a learning experience for me as a photographer. Like before, I shot this with a Canon EOS Rebel T4i. Rather than use a the Kit 18-55mm lens on a tabletop tripod (like the original image and final version), I went with the Canon EF 70-300mm lens on a full tripod. Thus, I was able to dial the f all the way to 45. I had to turn off the image stabilization because of the shake it creates on a tripod. Also, manual focus seemed to be sharper than autofocus. I was unable to get close to the dark black that I had achieved with my final version of the prior nomination until I adjusted the contrast and sharpness. After doing so, I noticed that the lighting seemed quite blue so I had to use custom white balance. Adjusting contrast and white balance are both techniques I learned yesterday at my local Calumet Photographic. My apartment is quite dusty so it took me several dozen takes to get the image this clean. I think this compares favorably with the only lens at FP (File:Lens aperture side.jpg).
Articles in which this image appears: Canon EF 40mm lens
Pancake lens
Canon EF lens mount
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment
Creator: TonyTheTiger

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose -- The color balance, contrast, and/or lighting looks much better on this shot. The crop is still a bit off -- for a shot like this it would make the most sense to me to center the lens in the frame. Per Muhammad's comment on the original nomination, the image quality is degraded a bit when you use an aperture smaller than f/13 or so. It makes much more sense to take a series of medium-to-large aperture shots and use software to focus-stack them. The resulting image would be much sharper and have better image quality overall. Jujutacular (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is uncropped. Cropping for centering is trivial compared to other issues so I will respond to those. I tried much more modest fs to see the image. It is difficult to get both the 40mm in focus and 52 mm in focus at lower fs in the setting I was working in. It might be possible under other settings, but stacking f/13s would have been stacks of images where the 52mm was out of focus in all originals. If you want both the front and back in focus this is the best I can do at this magnification. Admittedly, I was working at near the shortest focal distance possible at 300 mm. I did not try backing up and cropping out a portion of a smaller image. Likely from a greater distance the difference in focus quality of the 40mm and 52mm might not be that much. Any thoughts? Would we really be better stacking a few megapixels out of an 18 megapixel image from lower fs than this full image?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the way, on the original nomination I started with f/20 and was told to shrink the aperture and went to f32-36. Now I am starting with f/45 and you are telling me to work at least f/13 wide. What gives?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm saying you should focus stack multiple images in order to get the whole lens in focus, instead of using a very small aperture with lower image quality. This reflects what Muhammad said in the original nomination. Jujutacular (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - What kind of software would I need to focus stack?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Free: CombineZ (you can get good results with this, for example). Not free: Zerene Stacker. Jujutacular (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I am definitely not going to pay for software to do this. I would prefer to get this image with better light if possible. I live in Chicago with north facing windows. I believe this means that I only get direct sunlight a few months a year. I will have a lot of blue in my light from light bouncing off the blue sky most of the rest of the year. Is it possible that in direct sunlight months or in a better lighting situation, I can get better depth of focus without stacking?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Like I said, you can get good results with CombineZ. As for lighting you may try a DIY light tent. Maybe ask one of our more experienced photographers, I've never really done any studio photography. Jujutacular (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I made a light tent from a cardboard box using tracing paper and some sticky tape. Little to no expense required. The advice to increase the depth of field was sound, but increasing aperture so far is not the best way to do it. Your sensor will be sharpest at around f7.1-8. I'd probably stack at f9 or so. Oh, and 300mm is overkill. 80-150mm is just fine - whatever is convenient and not too short. JJ Harrison (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Regarding, suggestion to shrink from 300mm down to 80-150, it is necessary given my lenses and the subject size. I have a wide angle, 40mm, 50mm, 18-55mm and 70-300. The 70-300 has a minimum focal distance that makes a 100mm shot of this subject 1046x1425 pixels making it less than 1.5 megapixels at 100mm. I can barely get three different focal distances of a subject that small.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I backed up to about 11 ft. At that distance the image is about 1/4 the width of the screen. Thus, we would be talking about a final image that is 1/16th of 18megapixels. We would be pushing the image to the lower bounds of acceptable file size. At that distance, f13 does not produce sharp text in the rear of the subject (the 52mm). Thus, if you want the text reading 40mm in the front and the text reading 52mm in the back to be sharp, you have to deal with the high f-stops. What part of the image quality do you find degraded in this submission?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have the raw file for this image in case the image quality issue is something that might be processed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the crop, I have cropped the file to 40 pixels border on all sides and saved it over the uncropped original.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is much closer than the others, and a big improvement. However, the crop is too tight. I think at least a few hundred pixels on each side would be better. It's a bit visually jarring in the article thumbnails as is. Secondly, don't use such a narrow aperture; for physics reasons the resultant photo will be very soft. Learn how to focus stack and then do that. CombineZP is free computer software. It is a good skill to have anyway. JJ Harrison (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I will go with 250 pixels on all sides except the top. I guess I will try to learn how to focus stack. What angle should I be shooting this at? I'll upload that over the current crop.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should I show stack results here or should that be a separate nomination?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination superseded by Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Canon EF 40mm STM lens (focus stacked version). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]