Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM

Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2013 at 22:48:57 (UTC)
 * Reason:This image is a high quality image with high EV
 * Articles in which this image appears:Canon EF 40mm lens Pancake lens Canon EF lens mount
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment
 * Creator:TonyTheTiger


 * Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The cat hairs/dust/fluff is too distracting. Could you clean the lens and try again? Sasata (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It will have to wait until tomorrow. The lighting is not so good at night here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose For a studio shot this could be much improved. Firstly center the lens in the field of view, secondly use a smaller f number to get a deeper depth of view (use a tripod if needed). - Zephyris Talk 00:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe you mean a higher f number (for deeper depth of view). Notice that I chose f/20, which is pretty high. I will push it up higher though. I think I can go up to 36. At f/20 the shutter was open for 8 seconds, which is pretty long and gives fairly deep depth. Tomorrow the lighting will be better. I shot this with a table top tripod and remote shutter control. I will go with my Manfrotto tomorrow. Keep in mind we could just crop it to center it so centering is not so important. I will get a clean and deep shot in the morning. Any other advice would be appreciated. Of course, I can keep retaking it with further advice later though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't use a smaller aperture than f/13 ( f/14 onward) as the image quality will deteriorate. Instead, try focus stacking --Muhammad (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Focus stacking is probably beyond the effort I am willing to give. I am willing to turn the Aperture priority dial from 20 to 36 and see where it takes us.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I could not wait until I had the aid of sunlight. Edit1 is with f/36. I think it is more well centered as well. I may redo with better light, but see what you think with f/36.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have saved over edit1. The day is very overcast. Maybe I can get even better light over the next few days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of stacking for edit2, I went to fully manaul with an exposure time about 2 or 2.5 times that which the aperture priority exposure was reading. The lens is much cleaner than the other versions. I was out of the house for most of the day, so I missed most of the good light. I can redo if there is need to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Edit 2" appears to be an entirely new photo, so the rule that it needs to have been in the article for at least a week comes into effect (I think). Moreover, it's not a great photo - there are still specks of dust on the barrel of the lens, it's not quite centred (I think) and seems to be at a slight angle. Tony, based on the above you seem to be trying to use the FP process as a means of getting tips on how to take FP-quality photos which, while an admirable ambition, isn't its intended purpose. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We finally had about 20 minutes of good light here in Chicago. I think this is close to what we are looking for. Still can't get that white white background. I hope that is not a problem.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I just noticed a few flecks in the grooves. Sun no longer up. Will retry if sun comes up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close Sorry but no chance of promotion. When you've got the perfect shot nominate it then --Muhammad (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

--Jujutacular (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See new nomination Jujutacular (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)