Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Granny Smith Apples

Granny Smith Apples edit

Reason: clear, sharp, informative and seems to be the only image on wikipedia showing a cross section of an apple
Articles this image appears in

Creator: --Benjamint444 09:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator — Benjamint444 09:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The inside of the cross section is very sharp, but the skin isn't bad. But as this is a replicable, controlled shot, the standards are extremely high.--Here T oHelp 14:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It is a nice image... Booksworm Talk to me! 17:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support -- I support these studio shots of produce in general. I think it's great for encyclopedicitousnessosity to have a uniform catalog of them. Only weakly supporting since I think the detail on the cut fruit could be better. Trivia question: is this a single shot, or the same apple with two shots stitched together? --TotoBaggins 17:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not impressed. Not much encyclopedic value, doesn't "wow" me. I do not think that this is one of Wikipedia's best photographs. Wikipediarul e s 2221 21:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
info It's a single shot. --Benjamint444 08:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's encyclopedic and technically sound for the most part, but I'm abstaining, rather than opposing, due to it lacking a third positive attribute. Lighting is far from ideal, hence the lack of texture detail in the cut half and odd shadows on the whole fruit. It wouldn't be an inappropriate FP but it could definitely be improved upon. mikaul^talk 16:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Looks photoshopped (the dark shadow on the apple extends into the background) which is (again) not indicated on the image description page. This and previous incidences led to a complete loss of trust in this user and his works. Sorry! --Dschwen 18:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting and shadows do not match - light source is from the left, given the reflection on the whole apple, yet the shadow points to the right! J Are you green? 20:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dschwen. Something's definitely not right about the shadows (looks as though it was shot on a greyish background and then cut out), lighting isn't ideal and I don't feel I can trust anything this user says about single shots/lack of photoshopping given past nominations. --YFB ¿ 20:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - admittedly, the shadows are confusing, and explanation from the photographer would be appropriate, but I think the image deserves evaluation on its own merits. Let's assume good faith until we have evidence otherwise. Debivort 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, AGF still applies and there's no reason to oppose a photo purely on the basis of the nominator/creator. My point (and Dschwen's, I expect) is that given the user's past nominations, a little bit of extra scrutiny is required to ensure there's no misrepresentation of the subject; we need a bit more than "it's a single shot" because that turned out not to be the case in the past. Considering this image on its own merits, it doesn't look realistic; my opposition is valid on that basis. I suspect, given the context, that the reason for that lack of realism is that the image has been manipulated. If that's the case then it needs to be stated clearly on the image page.--YFB ¿ 21:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the shadows below the fruit are pretty consistent with a single hard light source, just right/above the camera, overexposing a white paper BG and leaving an underexposed shadow; it looks like a grey BG cut-out but it's not. Probably shot at the same time, too, although in these clinical shots it's no big deal if it's a comp or not, IMO. I'm pretty sure the shadow on the whole apple is an afterthought in Photoshop, probably using the "burn" tool, in an attempt to add back some spherical form to the flat-looking fruit. mikaul^talk 22:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think you're right about the burning but I'm still not 100% convinced about the shadows. EXIF says flash was used, and the popup flash (directly above the lens axis) would place the highlight in about the right place on the whole apple, but in that case I'd expect the shadow to fall more to the right of the subject; here the strong shadow on the whole apple suggests a light source offset slightly to the right. IANAA. It's pretty much academic as I can't see this being promoted, but it would be interesting to get Benjamin444's explanation. --YFB ¿ 22:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used PS for general image enhansments only. I rotated the cross-section apple a couple of degrees just to get it level but it is a single shot, taken in sunlight with no other light source (no flash), no isolation or cuting and copying. The background was just white paper, which I lightened more toward the edges of the image to make it fade out a bit. I did no dodging or burning and I didn't play around with shadows. ~~apart from lightening the edges I made only global adjustments.~~ see scren dump ~~Why would I bother compositing this and burning shadowns in?~~ no don't worry, just tell me what can be improved and I'll do another. --Benjamint444 03:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, a 16 in the Flash EXIF-tag means Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode [1]. But load the image into any Editing program and yank up the contrast. You'll see that the dark shadow on the right apple extends into the bg at approx 2 o'clock. By the way, why didn't the left half tip over? --Dschwen 06:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'd be happy to support FPCs of otherwise uninteresting subject if the image is of high-quality, but in this case the lighting drowns the detail of the cut half and the shadows are less than ideal. Having shadows both on the right side of the right apple and behind both is confusing (especially when you didn't use a flash). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is a screen shot showing all the layers in the image (luckily I save as TIFF). Hopefully it will clear this up. As I was putting it together I noticed a couple of layers that make quite large changes, So I understand if people think they should have been declared, but in all honesty I think that they are fairly trivial things and I don't believe that it needs a picture retouched tag just for them. Especealy considering the nature of this shot If the general consensus is that basic enhansments need to be detailed in the image description then I will rectify this image and add those details to my future uploads. The image in the top left of the screen dump is the original, complete with grit on the paper and a stick to prop the apple up. I've never done a shot like this before so my editing was fairly rambling because I was just experimenting with it. --Benjamint444 11:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised what caused the shadow, I took some of the shots with a mirror behind them to direct as much light onto the paper as possible, (experimenting) and that would make a shadow on both sides. --Benjamint444 11:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC) anyway, I've uploaded the screenshot. The left half was propped with twigs (the whole image was a mess from the start)[reply]

It looks more likely to have come from the active curves adjustment layer which lightened the apple in the centre but not the edges. In any case, I wouldn't be discouraged by the negative votes here if I were you, just take on the comments and have another go. Maybe diffuse the light with paper or a bedsheet or whatever. Try lighting more from the side for better form and detail. White backgrounds are ok for this kind of shot but far from obligatory (black? a darker green?) and apples fit into a number of simple, everyday backgrounds without being overpowered by them. You cetainly seem keen enough and know how to use a camera, so why not go for it? In the main, spend more time setting up the original shot, and less in photoshop, and you'll get 100% better results straight away. mikaul^talk 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expired nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]