Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nikon D200 front (aka)
Nikon D200 front (aka)[edit]
.jpg)
- Reason
- Excellent image - Perfectly exempted.
- Articles this image appears in
- Nikon D200
- Creator
- Aka
—αἰτίας •discussion• 19:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support reasons s. above —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unappealing lighting (no texture in camera front or lens - almost totally dark), cut-off neckstrap distracts. --Janke | Talk 19:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Janke. No caption. What does Perfectly exempted mean? de Bivort 20:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Janke. Would have needed more diffuse light from the front and the neckstrap should have been draped around the back of the camera to avoid cut-off. --Dschwen 20:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment yawn. -- carol 02:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs)
- Oppose because of composition, as mentioned, and because the lens shield and reflection on lens are blurred/have grain. I'll defer to Dschwen as to why. Enuja (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor cropping, tilted, strap cut off, generally uninspired and uninspiring. --mikaultalk 11:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Knee-jerk oppose The cut-off strap is an instant killer. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. For different reasons than the ones mentioned. The most prominent objects in the image are the lens and flash rather than the camera, which the image is supposed to be representing. The ideal image would be of the camera with no lens attached, or at the least with a minimally distracting 50mm lens on it, or something similar. Perhaps a kit lens if not. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I mainly made the image for the Nikon article - and therefore its probably OK to take a nikon camera with a nikon lens and a nikon flash. -- 83.151.18.245 (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)