Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/unwashed hand

Unwashed hand

 * Reason:I think it has great detail. The small dirt particles make this an excellent addition to the hand washing article, illustrating how small particles can be hidden from the unaided eye. In thumb version of the picture, the dirt particles are uncontainable and the hand looks clean. One does not notice them until the image is enlarged.
 * Articles this image appears in:Fingerprint, Hand washing
 * Creator:Pi Guy 31415

MER-C 03:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator &mdash; AutoGyro 01:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not very enc, totally lacks "wow" factor, strange color cast. --Janke | Talk 07:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Subject of image(hand) is cut off Bleh999 12:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Janke. Interesting image though. ~ Veledan • Talk 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Besides what others have said, it should be possible to achieve a significantly higher depth of field in this image. Your metadata says that you used a f-stop of 3.5.  For this image, try not more than 2.5.  (Use a good macro lens and a slight higher speed film than 64).  Zakolantern 17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Higher f-stop means more DOF not the other way around. --Dschwen 20:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes—remember that it's a ratio. 1/3.5 is smaller than 1/2.5. J      Are you green?  21:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are both correct, of course. I misspoke.  I should have said no smaller than 2.5, although my general point and the numbers I choose are still valid.  Zakolantern 22:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. The picture was not taken wit an aperture number smaller than 2.5, 3.5 is bigger (smaller aperture opening). To get a reasonable DOF depending on focal length an f-number above at least 8 should have been chosen. --Dschwen 22:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I clearly am done for the day - I apparently have forgotten how to think. One would think that spending several years shooting on full manual with both film and digital SLRs would make you immune to sounding like an idiot online when talking about photography, but I guess not.  Zakolantern 23:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)