Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Grapess.jpg

Grapes

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2011 at 13:59:48 (UTC)

Reason: Featured pictures & Quality picture
Articles in which this image appears: Grape
FP category for this image: Fruity
Creator: eflon

Support as nominator --PERSIA ♠ 13:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Original, Weak Support Edit 1. The original's colour balance seems way off. I've uploaded an edit that seems more natural. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to support the Edit 1, but there is a strange line in the upper right corner. O.J. (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Original, Weak Support Edit 1 -- As said above, there is a strange line in the upper right corner of Edit 1's image...Take care of that and I will fully Support. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 if that line gets removed. upstate NYer 04:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Not sure why the line appeared as it wasn't in the version on my PC. Something happened during the upload I guess. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original, weak oppose edit - I'm not seeing the EV here (I prefer this and that, for example...) and I don't especially like the composition - it seems a bit needlessly arty and the grapes don't draw my attention in the thumbnail. Nik thestoned 14:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support edit Miles ahead of the two images linked by Nik. Beautiful image, and strong EV. (Of course pending removal of line in top right). Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request? Take a look to the exif data. The camera, a "canon eos 40D" have a resolution of 3.888 x 2.592 px and the image: 4.378 × 2.484 px. The DOF can't be also at f/2 and 50mm so large. The DOF calculator say me max. 0.7cm, we see here 3-6cm! Why it is so? Is it a stitching, a focus stack? The info isn't available. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, something strange with the exif data as Canon 40Ds do not have this resolution. But the DOF width depends on distance to the object (which we can't know from the exif data), so I'm not sure that we can be sure that it is wrong too. Using a DOF calculator, at a distance of 2 metres, the DOF would be 12cm. At a distance of 1 metre, it would be 3cm. I'm guessing that there is a distance to subject of between 1-2 metres so I don't see any problem. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The info from the exif data: a 50mm lens. Take a shot from a similar object with a 50mm lens and you see then the distance can be only about ~50cm = DOF 0,7cm. Either the exif info is a totaly fake (why anyway?) or ???. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we judge the image on it's own merits (or lack thereof) rather than a dodgy exif? JJ Harrison (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Edit 2 You are right. Now I uploaded my version without the false EXIF datas. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
now for me oppose for both. We needn't fakes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both Per above. JFitch (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit. I don't think the Exif data is that much of an issue. There are numerous FPs without any Exif information. How can we be sure about them? As for the photo itself, it does show grapes in a natural environment and the quality and composition are sufficient. O.J. (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel that it should be cropped a bit from the right side --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 17:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While I'm not wild on Fir's pictures, we do already have a FP of a bunch of grapes growing. While this is a nice picture, I'm not blown away by the EV. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really the case? I count 5 support + nominator support and 4 oppose. O.J. (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Consensus is not in the image's favor. ("Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support") Makeemlighter (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]