Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ursus C-451

Ursus C-451

 * Reason:decent resolution, clear illustration of a tractor from the 50s in use
 * Articles this image appears in:Ursus Factory, Ursus C-45
 * Creator:Łukasz Golowanow & Maciek Hypś


 * Support as nominator: — Mae din \talk 10:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to go to Cuba in the first opportunity. You will find all kinds of old machinery like this still "working".  franklin   10:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per above. -- mcshadypl T C  03:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Good -- Herby  talk thyme 09:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, cool shot. Fletcher (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is that a real numberplate? Don't we have some kind of policy about blanking them? J Milburn (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not. Such plates aren't legit in Poland. Sir Wolf (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we have such a policy of blanking license plates? I see people do this sometimes as a courtesy, but on the other hand, there's no privacy right for property in a public place. Fletcher (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we have such a policy of blanking license plates? I see people do this sometimes as a courtesy, but on the other hand, there's no privacy right for property in a public place. Fletcher (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Good but a bit more foreground and less background would have worked better IMO --Muhammad (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Durova  390 03:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see some level of blur (motion?) on all of the subject. I am curious about why it has not been commented. Is it acceptable in this kind of images (means of transportation)?  franklin   05:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's motion blur, though I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong. I think you're seeing the softness that sometimes comes with poorer quality lenses, and don't forget that you're viewing high res.  I think it has not been commented on because slight softness at that resolution isn't an immediate no-no.  Does that answer your question?   Mae din \talk 08:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It does indeed look soft all over. Perhaps people were cutting it some slack as being from an 'under-represented part of the world' and an irregular creator, though a good point about no one mentioning it. A 50% downsize would still keep it within the guidelines, and brings it nearer to accepted sharpness so that needs to be considered too. --jjron (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, a closer look suggests the focus has missed. If you look you can see the dirt about five feet behind the back wheel is where the focus is. --jjron (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm reluctant to disagree with you, but I don't see that the area you've described is any sharper than the rest of it. Definition is being added by the pieces of hay, but as far as I can tell it's not taking the focus?   Mae din \talk 13:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go so far as to say that the focus was missed. My opinion is this: The focal point is on the driver, not behind the tractor. Both and the stickers on the window are most clearly in focus. However, I think that the softness is due to the lens. I haven't had a good look at the EXIF data, but chances are it was just taken with a cheap consumer level lens. They're usually a bit less than tack sharp at large telephoto focal lengths at the best of times. Sure, it's not tack sharp, but it's high enough res to compensate for that. As you mentioned, downsampling 50% would hide the sharpness. I find that's an appropriate litmus test for sharpness issues: Downsample it to a reasonable size and see if you would still hold the same criticisms. Just don't necessarily upload the grossly downsampled image to Wiki ;-). Keep the original online, unless the downsampled image doesn't sacrifice any detail, that is. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  17:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I quite disagree - I am used to hunting for focus in things like sports images (focus often just misses the action and the only thing to judge by could be say an otherwise indistinct patch of grass, like the situation here, and re Maedin, you don't need the hay, I can see it in the dirt). I believe my assessment of the focus being behind the tractor is correct. Like most assessments, it takes a bit to get used to picking focus in these images and I can understand others missing it. This is more than just softness - downsizing does help hide the 'softness' issue, but even then a good eye can still pick the focus as being behind the action. I'd agree with the comments re the lens, but that doesn't alter the location of the focus. --jjron (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Sharpness isn't perfect, but it's not out of focus - just soft. Not too soft to oppose though IMO. Interesting subject. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  20:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)