Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Peter Carey (historian)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2014 at 01:57:10 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- High quality, tack sharp. I rather like how it turned out. I had some concerns, but the more I look at it the more I like it.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Peter Carey (historian)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers, perhaps? (we put Benoit Peeters there)
- Creator
- Chris Woodrich
- Support as nominator – — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Neutral.I'm not sure. Compositionally it's nice enough, and the lighting (for a non-studio shot) is pretty good, but his skin tone looks very red to me. And it's a little blurred at 100%. Just not quite sure it's up there for FP. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)- I'll see what I can do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've reduced the tint by four (less red color) and used less drastic denoising (as well as a wee bit of downsizing). Diliff, I hope this is better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Still not sure it's much better. Needs a bit more (on my screen, at least). I had a go myself prior to commenting but couldn't reduce the redness without unduly affecting the image generally (but that was a crude attempt with the colour balance in Photoshop). You use Lightroom, right? And I assume it was taken in RAW? What I suggest is playing with an adjustment brush over just his skin. I'm not sure exactly what adjustments would be required but possibly a slight reduction in saturation and some tint/temp adjustments? I would have a go but it's always best to do it with the RAW files. Still, not a lot can be done about the slight blur which is the other half of the issue. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not too sure I see the blur, except maybe the nose (though that may be slightly OOF). I mean, the line between his jaw and the background looks perfectly crisp to me. Anyhow, I've tried to bring down the redness of his skin a bit.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think you've found a good skin tone now, certainly improved on the original. No, the focus isn't an issue (if anything, the nose is the sharpest part of the image) the blur is somewhat universal across the image. It's only slight and I'm being a little picky, but it appears to be camera shake to me. Just looking at the settings, you used 1/40th of a second and 100mm (160mm effective due to the crop sensor). That is usually too slow for handheld (rule of thumb is not to let the shutter speed drop below the effective focal length), although can be rescued with image stabilisation in some instances. I suspect that the IS has assisted with stability but not been 100% effective, leaving a slight blur. As I said, it's minor but noticeable to me. Compare with one of my portraits from the EU parliament earlier in the year. I was using a lens that would be technically less sharp than your lens, but I find the image itself a bit sharper (ignoring the resolution difference). I suspect the only difference is that mine was taken with a studio flash setup. That doesn't in itself make the image sharper, but it does freeze the subject better, so any camera or subject motion is eliminated. Anyway, in any case, I'm not suggesting you can only take FP portraits in a studio setting. I'm going to weak support because I think it's still a quality portrait, but not perfect. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I could probably have gone to ISO 320 or 500 without the noise being too much, and 1/80 or so would have probably been enough to eliminate the last vestiges of camera shake. Still technically breaking the rule of thumb, but then 1/80 worked pretty well for an image of the chairman (though admittedly that one had much shallower DOF). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps even just taking a few more photos (not sure if you took many or just one) would have been enough. Usually when my shutter speed is too slow to handhold, I take around 10 photos in succession (with finger held down on the shutter release that is, not pressing the button individually for each photo, which would introduce shake). I find that there's often a very large difference in sharpness between them even though my hands felt steady, and usually a couple of them will be objectively sharp. Anyway, plenty of ideas for next time. I know you don't generally have time to think about things or review your images when someone is standing there waiting for you, so more images is always better than less. Might not be the most cerebral way to take photos, but it's safer. Photojournalists/sports photographers don't shoot thousands of images of the same thing for nothing. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I'll keep it in mind. (BTW, if you're interested in volcanic craters I've got some interesting ones of Kawah Putih on my talk page. Shame the sulphur was too strong to readjust for the overexposed sky). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps even just taking a few more photos (not sure if you took many or just one) would have been enough. Usually when my shutter speed is too slow to handhold, I take around 10 photos in succession (with finger held down on the shutter release that is, not pressing the button individually for each photo, which would introduce shake). I find that there's often a very large difference in sharpness between them even though my hands felt steady, and usually a couple of them will be objectively sharp. Anyway, plenty of ideas for next time. I know you don't generally have time to think about things or review your images when someone is standing there waiting for you, so more images is always better than less. Might not be the most cerebral way to take photos, but it's safer. Photojournalists/sports photographers don't shoot thousands of images of the same thing for nothing. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I could probably have gone to ISO 320 or 500 without the noise being too much, and 1/80 or so would have probably been enough to eliminate the last vestiges of camera shake. Still technically breaking the rule of thumb, but then 1/80 worked pretty well for an image of the chairman (though admittedly that one had much shallower DOF). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think you've found a good skin tone now, certainly improved on the original. No, the focus isn't an issue (if anything, the nose is the sharpest part of the image) the blur is somewhat universal across the image. It's only slight and I'm being a little picky, but it appears to be camera shake to me. Just looking at the settings, you used 1/40th of a second and 100mm (160mm effective due to the crop sensor). That is usually too slow for handheld (rule of thumb is not to let the shutter speed drop below the effective focal length), although can be rescued with image stabilisation in some instances. I suspect that the IS has assisted with stability but not been 100% effective, leaving a slight blur. As I said, it's minor but noticeable to me. Compare with one of my portraits from the EU parliament earlier in the year. I was using a lens that would be technically less sharp than your lens, but I find the image itself a bit sharper (ignoring the resolution difference). I suspect the only difference is that mine was taken with a studio flash setup. That doesn't in itself make the image sharper, but it does freeze the subject better, so any camera or subject motion is eliminated. Anyway, in any case, I'm not suggesting you can only take FP portraits in a studio setting. I'm going to weak support because I think it's still a quality portrait, but not perfect. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not too sure I see the blur, except maybe the nose (though that may be slightly OOF). I mean, the line between his jaw and the background looks perfectly crisp to me. Anyhow, I've tried to bring down the redness of his skin a bit.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Still not sure it's much better. Needs a bit more (on my screen, at least). I had a go myself prior to commenting but couldn't reduce the redness without unduly affecting the image generally (but that was a crude attempt with the colour balance in Photoshop). You use Lightroom, right? And I assume it was taken in RAW? What I suggest is playing with an adjustment brush over just his skin. I'm not sure exactly what adjustments would be required but possibly a slight reduction in saturation and some tint/temp adjustments? I would have a go but it's always best to do it with the RAW files. Still, not a lot can be done about the slight blur which is the other half of the issue. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've reduced the tint by four (less red color) and used less drastic denoising (as well as a wee bit of downsizing). Diliff, I hope this is better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment It's a pity that the lanyard(?) and paisley-esque shirt make him look like he is in his pyjamas. Belle (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- The shirt is (probably fairly expensive) batik. His model was short sleeved, button up down the front. The lanyard is to hold his name tag during the conference. I should have asked him to take it off, but I didn't think of it :-( — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)