We had something a bit like this a while ago (the image server is running too slowly for me to find it at the mo), but there were some minor concerns over jpeg artifacts. This one by
User:Haloeffect looks a little bit better and similarly illustrates a nicely dynamic subject at
Fire-twirling.
Nominate and support. -
Solipsist 19:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment - It seems to be rather washed out, and the image noise and JPEG artifacting are noticable, so I've uploaded this edit.
PiccoloNamek 22:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Blurry.
Enochlau 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Of course it's blurry. To get that size of trail you have to have a relatively long exposure, and in that time the man and probably the camera too will have moved slightly. I think the fact that the twirler isn't so well defined adds to it, because if he was sharp it would draw your attention towards him and away from the fire. —
Vanderdecken∫ξφ
Support - you can't get perfect clarity and show those fire rings.
Renata3 19:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The fire could be sharper, and there's quite a lot of noise. I've taken better
[1]. ed g2s •
talk 20:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Support version 2. Comment: "I've taken better" - why don't you upload one, then? ;-) Seriously, a picture like this is often a lucky shot. This one could have been a little better by using a tripod, but is quite nice as is. --
Janke |
Talk 14:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:AnnanStaff2-2.jpgRaven4x4x 06:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)reply
We had something a bit like this a while ago (the image server is running too slowly for me to find it at the mo), but there were some minor concerns over jpeg artifacts. This one by
User:Haloeffect looks a little bit better and similarly illustrates a nicely dynamic subject at
Fire-twirling.
Nominate and support. -
Solipsist 19:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment - It seems to be rather washed out, and the image noise and JPEG artifacting are noticable, so I've uploaded this edit.
PiccoloNamek 22:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Blurry.
Enochlau 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Of course it's blurry. To get that size of trail you have to have a relatively long exposure, and in that time the man and probably the camera too will have moved slightly. I think the fact that the twirler isn't so well defined adds to it, because if he was sharp it would draw your attention towards him and away from the fire. —
Vanderdecken∫ξφ
Support - you can't get perfect clarity and show those fire rings.
Renata3 19:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The fire could be sharper, and there's quite a lot of noise. I've taken better
[1]. ed g2s •
talk 20:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Support version 2. Comment: "I've taken better" - why don't you upload one, then? ;-) Seriously, a picture like this is often a lucky shot. This one could have been a little better by using a tripod, but is quite nice as is. --
Janke |
Talk 14:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:AnnanStaff2-2.jpgRaven4x4x 06:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)reply