Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Catrinas 2.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

Image:Catrinas 2.jpg, featuredEdit


  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo 22:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment La Catrina – In Mexican folk culture, the Catrina, popularized by Jose Guadalupe Posada, is the skeleton of a high society woman and one of the most popular figures of the Day of the Dead celebrations in Mexico.
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo 22:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this one. The composition is very good, with good use of DOF, the skeleton to the left is crisp and sharp. Very nice colours and lightning. My eyes are immediately drawn to the photo. Well done. -- Slaunger 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      Comment I forgot to check your image page. I think you need to clean up on the use of categories, only use the most specific. Like death costums is a subcat of Traditions. This is redundant categorization, and you should only keep the most specific (death customs). I know there is a policy about that somewhere. Art and Culture also seems like overly general categories to use for this photo. Please look into this. -- Slaunger 23:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. Calibas 23:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Very sharp Acarpentier 00:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info Edited version by Sting uploaded above the original : sharpness enhanced in some areas and edge artefacts corrected. Sting 02:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support for the edited version An excellent photograph, useful and encyclopaedic, representing perfectly it's subject. The composition is very good, the colours are very well chosen and highlight the 2 puppets, their visual aspect is really nice (a tribute to Tim Burton ? – or the contrary, more probably –), the light is very good as well as the contrast and saturation, the noise in the background is like the grain of a classic film, the sharpness is excellent in some areas, but… there's a lack in the DOF : the front part of the skull, of the dress and the flowers are slightly out of focus. I've edited these parts and I think it's better now without loss of quality (noise or artefacts) and uploaded it above the original. There were also dark or bright edge artefacts in some areas, some of them well visible even at 100% (the picture has already been post-processed ?) and I've corrected them too. Of course, if my edit doesn't bring satisfaction, just undo it and revert to the previous version. Alternatively, I would have liked in the description page the info about the approximate size of them, as there's nothing in picture which could give a reference. Congratulations ! Sting 02:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you do it again but without sharpening the eye-sockets? There's a lot of noise in there and the jpg artifacts are starting to show. Calibas 03:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This way ? Sting 03:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Sting - thanks for the contribution. And a few comments.
1. Size - they are about 15 inches high.
Thanks. I added the info in the description page
2. DOF - There were a few considerations. First, the distance between subjects. Second, the distance camera-subject. Third, the scale relationship between subjects and how it was affected by the focal length. In order to obtain the size relationship between subjects, I used maximum zoom on the lens (135 mm on a canon 20d, which translates aprox into a 200 mm lens in 35 mm camera) and then I adjusted camera-subject distance. Subject size, focal length, subject to subject distance and camera to subject distance were all factors. Focused on face and used several apertures until I got the desired out of focus effect on second subject.
Yes, I took a look at the exif info. Excellent sharpness regarding the shutter speed.
3. Shot this in raw format.
4. I do as little post processing as possible, in order to maintain information in file so it can be maniplulated for different applications, print, computer display, etc.
3 and 4 : strange as there were quiet heavy edge artefacts, like if the image has already been heavily sharpened before. May be it could also be the sharpness setting of your camera.
5. Noise does not bother me at all, for it will not show when printed. Noise appears in all images after certain magnifications, just like grain. For me, Canon technology is good enough...

--Tomascastelazo 15:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Me neither as I wrote it. Here it looks like very natural grain, not like digital noise.
At the end, it's imo one of the best photograph I've ever seen here displaying a common subject : visual beauty, composition (the heads "looking" at the right of the picture makes feel there's something else out of the field), lightning, detail in the high and low lights, colours, sharpness… even if for the latest it's not perfect for the flowers zone. Yes, I really love this photograph ! Sting 13:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Thermos 05:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Did you not wanted to stay away from FPC? Iam glad you are not. -- Image: Good quality, good lighting, good composition, nice DOF --Simonizer 06:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Walké 07:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jeses 10:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support - Can we eat this? I read that some of these figures are made of sugar. Alvesgaspar 13:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Alvesgaspar - No, you cannot eat these ones... the ones that are edible are called Alfeñiques, made of sugar... --Tomascastelazo 15:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing sharpness, beautiful quality, astonishing depth of field and valuable and informative subject and composition. Freedom to share 16:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Vassil 13:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support   Richard Bartz talk 14:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support I love the colors and composition. --JaGa 19:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support --LucaG 19:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support The wow is definitely there! Doodle-doo Ħ 20:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Really beautiful. Sémhur 20:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Wo-ow ! Beautiful subject, colours and good technical quality. A bit noisy, but I think it's a tradeoff for the great sharpness, and overall, I like it this way. Benh 00:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Dori - Talk 16:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Question I am confused, who's the actual author? Nomination says Username but on the image page it says Tomascastelazo. Dori - Talk 16:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support very, very nice. DocteurCosmos 18:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment If these figurines are copyrighted, the photo is a derivative work. Who's the sculptor, and did he give his consent for the derivative work being published under a free license? Where was the image taken? Maybe "freedom of panorama" applies... Lupo 20:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support - Noumenon talk 04:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Alex Pereiradisc 22:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment According to the Wiki Commons page on Mexican law,
"Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases... VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places."
Assuming this was taken in a public place, it's perfectly legal except that the source needs to be cited. Of course, if you got permission from the owners it's a different story. Please correct this or delete the image, it's a wonderful picture but not worth getting Wikimedia sued. Calibas 00:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment Picture taken at the Museo de la Ciudad, Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico... a public place...--Tomascastelazo 17:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 22 supports, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 17:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)