Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:ZM1210-operating edit2.jpg

Image:ZM1210-operating.jpg edit

Info created by Georg-Johann Lay - uploaded by User:Georg-Johann - nominated by User:Georg-Johann --Georg-Johann 12:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support If you ever try to take such a picture you will note it's hard. No flash, no bright light because you want to see the glowing cathode... --Georg-Johann 12:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I like it. Did you have to crop the photo quite a bit? The resolution is on the low side (<2MPix). Do you have it in better resolution (or could you make a mew photo in better resolution)? The picture would perhaps be more complete if the connector/socket was not cropped. -- Slaunger 14:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info Yes, I cropped the original image. I had to take the image from some distance (more than 1.5 meters) and zoom, because macro does not give this depth of focus. Better resolution is beyond my equipment. The ZM1210 is intended to be soldered directly into the PCB. The connector is self made of cast resin, so I cropped it... --Georg-Johann 15:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose left: Obviously too small and too noisy. I tried an edit to address those problems. Lycaon 21:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only supporting the image at the right. It is nice, informative, valuable and has a reasonal technical quality level. Freedom to share 22:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like Lycaons edit. Perhaps the cropped connector could be cloned out? -- Slaunger 05:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose But I prefer the last edit with the empty socket cloned out. -- Slaunger 21:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like Lycaons edit (right version) more. It is better in quality and composition. The small bulb in the middle of the tube holder is an LED of 5mm diam to enlight holder and tube. The picture shows a detail of my nixie tube clock, so there are some tube holders alongside. --Georg-Johann 08:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the right version. --Niabot 14:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As I prefer edit3 /Daniel78 22:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in the favor of Richard's edit below

Image:ZM1210-operating edit2.jpg, featured edit

Info created by Georg-Johann Lay - uploaded by User:Richard Bartz - nominated by User:Richard Bartz
Info I added a 3rd! edit ;-) with perspective correction and a slight change of the composition --Richard Bartz 21:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info To prevent confusion i separated this edit- --Richard Bartz 12:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefere the third image, but all nominated are nice. --Karelj 22:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer the third edit (and would oppose the original nomination because of its crop). (Additionally, I can't think of how to light such picture better.) --che 00:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The images on the right (version 3 is slightly better I think). Removing the extra connector would be good, but it doesn't bother me too much. The main subject is nice and sharp and shows the internal detail well. --WikiWookie 08:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC) - updated support after third edit added --WikiWookie 00:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Third. Adam Cuerden 02:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Third.--Mbz1 03:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Third. --Richard Bartz 12:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is the usual procedure if there are more versions of the same picture like in this case? Withdraw the nomination and rerun the process? Or just wait until the voting is over and then replace the first version with the one that got most votes? I would prefer the second way. It is straigt forward and does not clutter up this page. Sorry for my OT question, but I could not find a hint and the experts are present :-) --Georg-Johann 12:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let it and c what happens :-) The version with the most votes will be featured in the end --Richard Bartz 12:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice, but I prefer the last edit with the socket cloned out. -- Slaunger 21:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Argument no longer valid as I have withdrawn the clone edit. -- Slaunger 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As I prefer edit3 /Daniel78 22:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp --Beyond silence 13:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, nice, valuable. Freedom to share 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mir gefällt diese Variante am besten. --Georg-Johann 19:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of the remaining versions I prefer this edit. It is very nice. -- Slaunger 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ZM1210-operating edit3.jpg edit

Info photo by Georg-Johann Lay - perspective corrected by Richard Bartz - cropped socked cloned out by Slaunger - uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger 21:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info I could not resist adding a 4th edit ;-) based on Richards edit above and attempted to clone out the cropped unused socket, which I find distracting. It is only the second time I attempt to do extensive cloning, and it can certainly be done better. However, I think it improves the composition. Feel free to improve the cloning in this edit by uploading another version of the image. -- Slaunger 21:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger 21:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one best, it's very good. /Daniel78 22:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Imho, cloning out complete parts of a picture -- perceived as unaesthetic or not -- goes too far. --Georg-Johann 22:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree cloning should not be done carelessly and it is much a matter of taste. I am normally concerned about altering an image by cloning too. There are ezxceptions however, and I think this is one of them. Here the subject is clearly the tube and nothing else. So to illustrate that well you need to see the tube and preferably how this interacts with its surroundings. In this case its own socket and by the very delicate lightning. We see that in the image. Now, the tube is actually a subcomponent in a device of yours consisting of several tubes and some electronics. However, this is not the subject and not what you intend to show. It is just a convenient holder of the subject. Therefore, I see the cropped, empty socket next to the tube as a distracting element which has nothing to do with the subject. I guess you have actually removed a tube from you device to make this photo already? If that is the case you have already manipulated reality to make the subject stand out - a kind of real world retouching which i have no problem with. Given these circumstances I find cloning is in order, provided the manipulation is clearly specified in the image page (which it is) with proper reference to the original. It is not like altering history by retouching away a person or so from a historic photo. Sorry for such a long comment, just wanted to explain why I did it. -- Slaunger 08:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMHO: This is not a matter of taste but a matter of priciples. Adjusting the orientation is all right, it is the analogon of rotating a real photo. Yes, I removed one of the six tubes because it would have been right in the background of the tube shown. But I did not clone it out, I just removed it before making the photo. And this is no "retouching" or cloning out because the removed nixie was never on the photo. If the socket is a reason not no tag one of the photos as FP it's a pity, but that's not a justification for the manipulation in question. (Note: The perspective was given by the cathodes, a direct shot from the front would have aligned all 10 cathodes behind each other. And as it is a still life, I could not ait until the socket was gone...) --Georg-Johann 19:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info Edit 2 also used cloning to complete the the image after rotating. You can see it at the left bottom. But as long only the background is cloned - a part that is out of interest - cloning should be ok.
Support Looks good to me. --Niabot 09:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The clone job is not done very well --Richard Bartz 21:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do you think it is a good idea to clone it out, if it is done right? -- Slaunger 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know. The tendency is no. --Richard Bartz 13:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Clone area looks like a dirty smudge in the corner. Not bad for a first try, but not FP. --WikiWookie 01:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that most users thinks this clone thing is a bad idea and that it is not done very well. I'd like to see a version promoted, and I withdraw this one to set the scene more straight in coutesy of the original creator. -- Slaunger 21:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]