Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Roasted Coffee Beans

Roasted Coffee Beans

 * Reason:I was looking through the FPs on the Turkish Wikipedia (no joke), and I saw this image, which also happens to be a Commons FP.
 * Articles this image appears in:Coffee bean, Coffee roasting, Venezuelan work songs, Colombian coffee, National symbols of Colombia.
 * Creator:MarkSweep


 * Support as nominator --Nautica Shad es  02:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Cacophony (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Capital photographer (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support The problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. - Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca Durova Charge! 09:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Narrow field of focus, so a lot of the image is blurry. Compare this FP.  Spikebrennan (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's called "Depth of Field" for goodness sake. And it doesn't all have to be in focus anyway. Capital photographer (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all of us are "Capital Photographers"; forgive us for not using the technical term. Muhammad (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, but no only is the poster dishing on a perfectly acceptable feature of the composition, but isn't even using the right term. Capital photographer (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly it's inappropriate to call him a "poser" just for using a variant on a photographic term - that is verging on a personal attack and is unacceptable. And secondly, if you cared to inspect the picture he has linked to, you would see that the DOF for a very similar subject has been handled in a different, and clearly to him, more attractive way. In other words, his opinion is perfectly valid, he has linked to another image to demonstrate it, and he is perfectly within rights to express that view, even if you disagree with it (for reasons that you have not even expressed in your 'vote'). --jjron (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was meant to read "poster". My mistake. Capital photographer (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is 'dishing' also a technical term? 'Dissing' maybe?ProfDEH (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dissing would certainly be the more common current slang in this context, but dishing could be taken as a variant form of something like the slang phrase 'dish it out'. Gee, it's easy to get those technical terms wrong though, isn't it? Good thing we're a forgiving bunch and don't worry too much about the odd mistake or variant use of terms! :-). --jjron (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer Spikebrennan's comment, I'd just like to say that I actually prefer there being a slightly shallow depth of field. It "frames" the image in a way; it does, after all, show several beans in high detail, so do we really need that many more? Nautica Shad es  21:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense taken. Learn something new every day.  (I've never claimed to be a photographer so thanks for the vocabulary lesson).  My point about the shallow depth of field in this image is that the subject matter of the photo is all of the coffee beans, not just a few of them in a narrow band.  I thought that a photo where more of the subject matter is in focus would be more encyclopedic; and I noticed from Fir's hazelnut picture that a wider depth of field (is that correct usage?) is possible.  Notice that I didn't oppose.  Spikebrennan (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Good illustration and picture Massimo Catarinella (talk)
 * Support. Good material for sure. - Darwinek (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Mfield (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose DOF issue as per Spikebrennan, and no scale provided. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I just saw a much better advertisement of coffee beans in the local coffee shop. It's just not that compelling of an image.  If it's just beans, it has to be great, imo.  --Blechnic (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then do you believe that this FP should be delisted? And all of these (1/2/3/4/5/6)? Out of curiosity, how exactly was the coffee shop image better? Nautica Shad es  23:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The hazelnuts and the tomatoes are both beautifully lit, but these and the others just don't do it for me. I think they should be delisted and would support their delisting.  I'm not sure about the EV of the raspberries and blueberries, as I don't know about Alaska's native flora; the image may have value beyond its simple aesthetic.  The coffee shop beans were superbly well lit creating a gorgeous image.  I suspect they were lit from the side with a lamp glancing off the top, then bouncing softly back.  --Blechnic (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 04:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)