Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Using Portable Folding Reflector

Using Portable Folding Reflector



 * Reason:good quality and EV
 * Articles this image appears in: Reflector (photography)
 * Creator:Mbz1


 * Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Info The caption was written by User:MIckStephenson. Thank you!
 * Support per nom.  Durova 357 19:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Silversmith Hewwo 21:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not the best angle to depict how this reflector functions. One can't even tell that the device is reflecting sunlight to illuminate the woman. -- mcshadypl T C  22:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then how she got illuminated in your opinion?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly there is a speedlite with a CTO gel on the other side of the reflector. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Where, on the reflector?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Only joking about the original. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I usually put ":)", when I am joking :). The thing is that it was the very first time I saw such reflector, and because I am not a pro, and have no idea how that thing works, I thought you were serious :) --Mbz1 (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Encyclopedic photo. --. ds m . 21:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Original Only per nominator, alt doesn't offer the same EV.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.59.209 (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This was me forgetting to sign in. Cowtowner (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support (original) - the original works well, as it makes it clear that only one person is lit from that angle, and that person is the one in front of the reflector. So I prefer the EV there. I'm not in love with the composition, I'm afraid, but a tighter crop wouldn't help, as what it really needs to me is a bit more space on the left. Still, I think the EV overcomes that. :) - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the opinion that the model is too much to the left in the frame. Now, I disagree with not being possible to solve with a crop. Actually you can solve it (making the photo comfortable) but even more you can do it while also putting the heads of the model and the photographer almost in the main diagonal (and we make it even more comfortable too look at). Now, this is my humble opinion and that is why I didn't dare to do the edit. Mila, would you like to do it yourself? or maybe even re-do the picture completely. The thing is that a picture on this topic can be easily re-made. Then, I think, it can be asked extreme perfection this time.  Franklin.vp   03:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean under "re-do" the image?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with cropping was just that the crop becomes very tight, while I generally prefer a bit more space around the subject - if people are happy with that, though, all is good. :) One could also remove some of the sky, which changes the composition so that it is still weighted to the left, but not the bottom left as it is now. I wouldn't recommend that latter, given the subject, if the sun was present in the sky, but as it isn't this might also be viable. - Bilby (talk)
 * I really should try things before speaking. :) You're right - square crop, focused on the three figures, works fine. The image is big enough that there's enough space on the left side. Long crop, roughly 2:3 ratio, works ok, but needs to be a bit higher, as you definitely want to keep as much sky as possible without leaving it off balance. As an aside, there's what looks like a spot of dust from the sensor on the reflector, and a small mark on her swimsuit (which may have been there in real life) - not that either are particularly important, and both are only visible for pixel-peepers. - Bilby (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha! I got an Edit conflict for you posting this. Look at what I was telling you (and the others). I like very much you idea of cropping sky from above. The thing is that when you crop a big chunk from the sky the image becomes a landscape (a lying rectangle) that is half dark and half lighten. The gaze of the viewer is not then captured completely by the model (which could be seen as a mistake) but also by the light on the right. Then the spectator's eye is forced to move from the light to the model, to do the movement that is precisely that of the light that is being reflected and is the main topic of the photo. I find it very nice (or I am getting too excited) in my very humble opinion.  Franklin.vp   03:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean under "re-do the picture completely"? No I would not like to crop it myself. The image all yours please do as you wish :) Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't see your question before. I meant that those that have the will and the tools necessary can take the topic, can take even your approach and make a new picture. If you don't like the idea of cropping I think it should be based in something. You look like you are a pro and I got my first camera less than a year ago. I don't dare.  Franklin.vp   04:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not a pro. The image was taken by a pure acident. I do not know the people from the image. I just happened to be in the right place at the right time :) I did not mean I am against the crop, not at all. I only meant, that I am not sure what crop to make, that's why I asked you to do it for me, or maybe you could add a note to the image with the crop you have in mind, and I will crop it myself :) Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support original. More dynamic and IMO better composition. Also the dark clouds show how portraits are taken on overcast days --Muhammad (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose all edits --Muhammad (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to hear the reasons. I am hoping to learn something from it. Especially in the case of Alt2 which has, IMO, all the features of the original and is addressing the problem with the little space to the left. Also say something, please, about Alt3. Is not that I am terribly interested in it to be featured it is that I liked the result very much and I would do that again with pictures of my own and if something is wrong I would like to not stay in my ignorance.  Franklin.vp   13:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The alt3(actually edit 3 and like wise for alt2) is missing the feet and alt 2 has lost out on some clouds which IMO add to the EV and aesthetics of the picture. Nothing wrong, just a difference of taste :-) --Muhammad (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't mind alt 2 per below. Still oppose alts 1 and 3 --Muhammad (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not liking the lack of crispness in the original, although it illustrates the technique. The alt has no merit at all, and I strongly oppose it.  Nezzadar  [SPEAK]  03:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What crispness are you talking about? Elekhh (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK here are the two. Photographing a modelAlt1.jpg Photographing a modelAlt2.jpg The first one is the crop I was saying in the beginning, plain use of the rule of thirds. The second is the idea that Bilby gave me of cropping sky. It is also an application of the rule of thirds but this time only in the vertical direction, aiming to give attention to the reflector. That's the one I like the most (this is also very personal, I tend to do these things, these butchering of heads and limbs when my subject is something else. I read from Pascal Baetens that that is sometimes OK but let's see if people think it is OK this time). Notice how the center of attention is the reflector with the gaze having to take sporadic tours to the light on the right.   Franklin.vp   05:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Edit 2, Oppose Edit 3 Three misses the mark entirely. Pretty, but fails to have the reflector as the focus of the image. Two is okay, but not properly centered or composed as well as I would like.  Nezzadar  [SPEAK]  07:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support (original). The value of the image is in the contrast between the dark sky and the effect of the reflector, therefore Oppose Alts . Have to agree that composition is not ideal. Elekhh (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Alt3 . Neutral Alt2. Would weak support Alt 2 if it included more sky. By composition not ideal I meant that reflector is seen from back and partialy hidden behind human body - compared to Alt 1 which shows the reflector, however does not demonstrate its effect. Elekhh (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * but in all the others you see that it is an overcast day too, that everyone is dark, the rocks are dark and the only one lighted is the model. And in addition the issue of the composition is addressed. I do not understand. Isn't it the purpose of this forum to get as output the finest pictures of Wikipedia? I am just waiting to see if Muhammad found a technical mistake in Alt2. If that is that case I'll shut-up. But that one is the same as Milas' picture with the girl closer to the first third as it should be according to the book.  Franklin.vp   23:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * another thing is that the crop in Alt2 allows some little more space from above if what people want is more clouds that can be done. What definitely is needed in the original is some horizontal crop that's it. To make it perfect or closer to perfect. Of course the crop from the right begs some crop from above too, but there is plenty of clouds there to allow taking a little.  Franklin.vp   23:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original per nom. I don't get the controversy-- very high EV, and this is an attractive and well-composed picture.  Spikebrennan (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I will Support the original nom but I do much prefer Alt 2, for composition but also simply because the background is totally irrelevant to EV. Mila might well correct me if wrong, but the upper half of the original isn't cloud or sky, it's a cliff face or hillside in the distance; there's no point in showing it. Otherwise I agree with Spike, it's a very valuable image indeed, waay better than the one it replaced if only because it explains the technique, the effect and the application all in one shot. mikaultalk 09:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It sure is a cliff.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Original or alt2. Oppose alt3 (reflections off the rocks give information about the light direction). Noodle snacks (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)