Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Mt Uluguru and Sisal plantations.jpg
- Reason
- Good quality, EV and aesthetics. When I uploaded the image I was not aware of plantations other than the sisal ones but after asking around, I was told there are sugarcane, coffee, cotton and sisal among the cash crops grown in the region.
- Articles this image appears in
- Sisal, Morogoro Region, Uluguru Mountains, Agriculture
- Creator
- Muhamad
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Has slightly weak EV for Sisal and agriculture (as it is fairly sparsely agricultural in view) but I think it provides good EV across the many articles it is used in - particularly Morogoro Region - which don't otherwise have much in the way of high quality illustrative images. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Supportgood quality picture but will prefer less cloudsWai Hong (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Clouds forming over mountains is part of the water cycle.. It seems a bit silly to be concerned about them when they're pretty common and therefore representative of the environment of the area. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support. High encyclopedic value in illustrating the region and mountains. It's not particularly well focused at full resolution, but at lower resolutions it's good enough. Mostlyharmless (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Weak technicals (blurry), and EV isn't too strong either. — Jake Wartenberg 12:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- The image is high resolution for a single non stitched image, and the procedure for voting, is to view it in the size requirement as per the FPC criteria and not at full size. Thanks --Muhammad(talk) 15:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, opposing based on sharpness at full size is not fair, although even downsampled, it is still a little unsharp on the left side. I noticed that this was brought up at the PPR too actually. My guess is that the problem is with the lens. I don't know if your 18-55mm is the IS version or not, as you don't mention it on your kit list, but I'm guessing it is. I occasionally have the same problem with my 24-105mm f/4L IS lens, and I think it's the image stabilisation at fault. It must adjust the lens elements incorrectly sometimes which shifts the plane of focus away from the sensor. It seems to happen to me more often when I'm not holding the camera steady (but of course that's what IS is for!). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, my lens is not the IS version, but I agree the softness may have something to do with the lens. If you remember, this image seemed to have the same problem. But at the shutter speed this was shot at, I doubt it can be motion blur --Muhammad(talk) 18:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly, and it cannot be shutter speed if the centre is not soft. Most lenses are a bit softer at the corner but not usually to this extent. If I were you, I'd be looking to upgrade to a good wide angle zoom (the 17-40mm f/4 is very good), but I know that money doesn't grow on trees. Hmm but what about cash crops? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- LOL. I may get the 17-40mm in a couple of years time but for now, I am more interested in macro and want the MP-E 65mm. --Muhammad(talk) 06:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect that the softness is probably due to the shot being taken at f4.5 which is pretty wide open to be expecting a kit lens to be at its optimum, you should try shooting a static scene with this lens at f4.5, 8 and 11 and see if the softness improves as you close down. Certainly I would be looking to shoot a landscape such as this at at least f8, both for DOF and for lens sharpness. I would hesitate to go past 11 with a crop sensor though or you are going to start seeing diffraction softening of the entire image. Mfield (Oi!) 23:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly, and it cannot be shutter speed if the centre is not soft. Most lenses are a bit softer at the corner but not usually to this extent. If I were you, I'd be looking to upgrade to a good wide angle zoom (the 17-40mm f/4 is very good), but I know that money doesn't grow on trees. Hmm but what about cash crops? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, my lens is not the IS version, but I agree the softness may have something to do with the lens. If you remember, this image seemed to have the same problem. But at the shutter speed this was shot at, I doubt it can be motion blur --Muhammad(talk) 18:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, opposing based on sharpness at full size is not fair, although even downsampled, it is still a little unsharp on the left side. I noticed that this was brought up at the PPR too actually. My guess is that the problem is with the lens. I don't know if your 18-55mm is the IS version or not, as you don't mention it on your kit list, but I'm guessing it is. I occasionally have the same problem with my 24-105mm f/4L IS lens, and I think it's the image stabilisation at fault. It must adjust the lens elements incorrectly sometimes which shifts the plane of focus away from the sensor. It seems to happen to me more often when I'm not holding the camera steady (but of course that's what IS is for!). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- The image is high resolution for a single non stitched image, and the procedure for voting, is to view it in the size requirement as per the FPC criteria and not at full size. Thanks --Muhammad(talk) 15:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Opposeper mfield. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment FWIW, the edit's a slightly sharper version. Time3000 (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per myself Mfield (Oi!) 01:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Weak oppose It's a nice composition, but I find the contrasts a bit harsh. Must be difficult to get this right in the tropics, but a smaller aperture probably would have helped, per Mfield. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted --wadester16 01:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
