Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/85mm prime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Canon 85mm f/1.8

Canon f/1.8 85mm prime lens
Canon f/1.8 85mm prime lens

A good technical image, something I believe Wikipedia needs more of. Although I probably could have used a polarizer to remove the burnt areas, I personally rather like the lighting as it is.

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 12:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, this is just an "ad shot" - not material for a FP. IMHO. --Janke | Talk 17:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok... Is it not pleasing to the eye? Or is it not of Wikipedia's best work? I'm just struggling to see how it fails WP:WIAFP for being an "ad shot". Of course if it's just a personal dislike of that type of shot I can understand that too. --Fir0002 21:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
If that is the case then it's not really a valid objection, if it's something about the image or how it related to the article on it then it would be. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 23:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, to clarify: IMO, FPCs need some kind of a "wow-factor" for me to support them. This is quite an OK shot as such, but rather mundane - similar can be found in most manuals and ads. This is just a picture of a lens (with some dust on it... ;-) So, I don't think it is WP's "best work" - you need something more to make it that. --Janke | Talk 05:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Although i'm probably sticking my nose where it doesn't belong by saying this i have to point out that the picture does a great job illustrating a phtographic lens and with a good caption (like the one on the Photographic lens article) it can really add a lot to the article. I agree with you that it's not a jaw-droping picture, but remember: that is not a requierement for FP. Still, the encyclopedic value far out-weights any wow factor needed.Nnfolz 14:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Good informational shot considering the subject. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 23:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent image -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-03 01:48
  • Oppose. Just doesn't do it for me. Aside from that, you could have done a better job cleaning that lens before you shot it. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Nice shot Fir!Nnfolz 05:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose i personally don't like it--Vircabutar 07:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with Janke -- Froggydarb croak 10:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • support - not really "striking" but a whole different find of FP. Renata 10:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think I've mentioned this somewhere on commons, but I see one of these images is up for FPC right now, and it seems relevant (WP:WIAFP 4 and 9)... In regards to the image description page, there is a template with the message "If you are a (commercial) publisher and you want me to write you an email or paper mail giving you an authorization to use my works in your products or a license with the terms of your choice, please email me to negotiate terms." This seems to be a bit in conflict with the GFDL tag it has. It also contains a link to a website that offers paid services.. that just doesn't sit well with me. -- Ned Scott 10:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I can appreciate your concerns, but I based that comment off Gmaxwell's commons page. It's actually not conflicting with the GFDL at all. What it is saying, is that under the terms of the GFDL and commercial publisher needs to include an entire copy of the GFDL with the publication. Not many publishers want to do this, so hence I offer to grant a more liberal permission. Another prominant user (Aka) has adopted the same basic template after seeing it on one of my images. If this has not allayed your worries, please contact me on my talk page and I can give you a more detailed/specific response --Fir0002 12:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. There's nothing wrong with making it clear that you MIGHT be willing to grant a more limited/liberal license in a specific set of circumstances. I've said just as much on my user page, albeit I don't have that info on each photo. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see, that does make sense then. This also warrants your contact info, so I'm going to assume good faith. Thanks for clearing that up for me. -- Ned Scott 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose The shot is good technically but I don't think it should be a FP --Newton2 16:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The ad-shot argument has been uses previously to shoot down nominations. If this nomination would be technically perfect i might give it a weak support, but the stark glare on the lens (reflection of the light source) is a knock out for me. You won't find that in professional ad-shots, because it hides details of the product. Lighting must be much softer.

--Dschwen 16:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Question why is this picture a better illustration that the picture of the Nikon lens that is currently featured ? Ericd 16:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect this is not a valid argument. For a picture to be featured it doesn't have to be that another.Nnfolz 20:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
"A featured picture should:
(...)
5. Add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not.
(...)"
If you prefer : Does it add more value to an article that the picture of the Nikon lens that is currently featured ?
Or help complete readers' understanding of an article in a way that the picture of the Nikon lens does not ?
Ericd 23:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No, your totally right technically on that point, but think about this: can an article have 2 FP? What if an article with a Fp gets another FP wich 'adds a lot more' to the article? should the other be delisted? Nnfolz 05:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
IMHO an article can have several FP. Ericd 07:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly right; there's never been a limitation on the number of featured pictures an article can contain. We judge each picture on its contribution to the article, not on the other pictures in the article. Raven4x4x 10:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
But what's the use of two pictures of similar lenses ? A very different lens would add more to the article ? Ericd 16:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Dschwen. Mikeo 19:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. curious perpective. Darkone 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to glare. HighInBC 21:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support The specs of dust and glare are the only problems. --Tewy 06:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Dschwen and Dante Alighieri. --Yummifruitbat 12:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:HighInBC --Jam01 23:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Some specks of dust could perhaps have been removed? Otherwise very good. --GunnarRene 21:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Promoted Image:Canon 85mm prime.jpg Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 00:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: This closing was deemed not in line with consensus, and is accordingly revoked. The result is deemed Not Promoted. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)