Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Canteloupe and cross section.jpg

Canteloupe and cross section[edit]

Reason: Technically very good and very high EV
Articles this image appears in: Muskmelon
Creator: Fir0002

Support as nominator --Fir0002 09:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lemon martini (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see this is in the Muskmelon article. Could it not be considered for Cantaloupe as well? Lemon martini (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I've now included it that article --Fir0002 05:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yummy, good EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I just don't think that the photographing of a common everyday object on a white background is FP material. Sure it's sharp and well exposed, but once you are set up you can switch in and out thousands of subjects that will all be sharp and well lit but does that make them interesting to have on the front page? Hope you see my point, it's nothing against the images themselves, but where does it end, will we have an FP fruit and veg month with a different one on every day?! I don't see people rushing to read Muskmelon when seeing this. I think there is strong encyclopedic merit to seeing the fruit attached to its tree as well/instead. Mfield (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing Picture of the Day with FP. All POTDs are FPs but not all FPs are POTDs. Cacophony (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Cacophony is right FPC and POTD are separate projects and you shouldn't be judging nominations with POTD in mind - that's a byproduct. I agree that this probably hasn't got mind-boggling wow factor, but this being an encyclopaedia the technical and EV make for an FP IMO. Also I was actually quite surprised at how hard it was to actually take these. I did initially think that once I'd got the first one right it would be relatively simple to do this series, but it was surprisingly time consuming to get a good cross section and to get it to stay upright (blu-tac was useful) and post processing also was relatively lengthy. All the shots were done as three-shot focus stacks (sometimes more); the texture of the white paper needed to be removed; the background had to be whitened without blowing any highlights on the subject or washing it out too much or creating harsh lighting etc etc. As for seeing it attached to the tree - well you can't have everything in a single shot! How else would you be able to get a cross section? --Fir0002 05:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the distinction between FPC and POTD, although my wording may have implied that I was not. I do think that for something to be FP though one has to consider its ability to incite interest in the viewer to read the accompanying article, and POTD happens to be an obvious place for that to take place. I do feel that if we are creating featured content then there has to be some limits to how many essentially identically composed and lit shots can be featured, there are after all a million items in the grocery store that could be swapped in, and it doesn't necessarily mean they illustrate the subject particularly well for enc. purposes. I am not belittling the work to create these images, I shoot a lot of this kind of work myself commercially, both stills and for ObjectVR. (If you want to save yourself some work, you need to get the subject a good deal further away from the background - not only to push it properly beyond DOF to lose the texture/folds in cloth but it will help separate the subject and background lighting and reduce issues with shadows and help contrast on the edges of the subject). See also my comments on the passion fruit nom re. food photography and sense of scale etc. to save me repeating them again. Mfield (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern but I do think it's important to keep in mind that an encylopedia is primarily there to inform people who are already to looking for information rather than to try inspire new readers. I also think that you're placing too much value on POTD as a tool to incite interest - the image will only be on the mainpage once for 24 hours - should that really be an FP's main purpose in life? For the rest of its days it's just going to be serving its home article - that's what you should have in mind not POTD. Also there really isn't much in the criteria to support this objection, because as you'll note in criterion 3 "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative." Also the incite interest objection would bar all reproductions of artwork from being FPs despite this category. --Fir0002 10:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find toothpicks work better than blutack actually. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support well done. — Aitias // discussion 19:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The only thing I'd add is some kind of size reference. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I agree with the above, size reference would be nice. From the picture it looks to be about the same size as the apples (above). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatsdesk (talk • contribs) 03:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Canteloupe and cross section.jpg MER-C 04:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]