Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tennis Ball

Tennis Ball[edit]

Reason: Sharp, high resolution, large DOF, likely to be difficult to take a significantly better shot.
Articles this image appears in: Tennis ball, Ball
Creator: User:Fcb981 Self nom

Support as nominator — Fcb981 07:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: unevenly lit; background especially lacking in light - white background that appears white would be ideal. Slightly lateral flash would be more elegant, to ease up on the strict symmetry of the picture. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont think the gradiated background is much of a problem, but tastes do very. And yes the lighting is a bit direct but until I get a flash gun and an external sync unit (hopefuly sometime next month) thats about what I'm stuck with. -Fcb981 14:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I find that toying around presents a few alternatives. There isn't a replacement for "the real McCoy." However, one cheap substitute that I found involves wraping a lamp in tissue, giving very diffused light. The problems are that yes, there is still a gradient (but it's smaller), and that it requires a long exposure (plenty of noise on my camera). Here's an example. By the way, I know that that photo is poor, but I didn't have a lot of time. J Are you green? 16:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. There's a hidden message in the linked picture. Challenge: who can identify the source of the hidden message? J Are you green? 18:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]
- Theres nothing "poor" about your picture, I also admire your creativity, I'll have to try your Idea. Thanks. -Fcb981 15:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is that Hebrew? Also, try bounced flash, get a business card and a rubber band and wrap the card in front of the flash so it reflects the light up, and jack up the flash exposure compensation to +1.0 - +2.0. --antilived^{T | C | G} 22:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. I was in a hurry, and I grabbed the first sheet of paper that I saw. I didn't notice that the ink had bled through until my hand slipped while adjusting the curves! Strange.... J Are you green? 02:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, a less distracting background would be more effective for me. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 23:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not take the photo outdoors in full shade? Shadowless lighting. No need for a flash. No long exposures. Cost: none. Give it a try! Fg2 00:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See this photo for a cheap, easy setup. Fg2 01:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment consider using an unbranded ball, or the unlabeled side - compare with Image:Golfball.jpg. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tennis balls are manufactured and distributed by privet companys. I don't hand make mine and neither do most people. To Suggest that tennis balls are made without a brand name on them is misleading and taking copyright issues, trademark issues, etc. to an extream. -Fcb981 21:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The issue is not copyright, but product placement. Supermarkets and bargain stores in Europe sell unbranded tennis balls. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So do places in the US. Honestly though, this picture only shows one half of a ball and turning it to the blank side is a simple solution. There is nothing extreme about Wikipedia avoiding the appearance of advertising. pschemp | talk 13:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the lighting and the logo. I don't object to logos generally if they are commonly part of the object, but having the logo centered like this is too much like advertising for my taste. --dm ^(talk) 19:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]