A very good product shot of the Canon PowerShot S3 IS, illustrates the subject very well, of high resolution and reasonably sharp. Created by KirinX.
- Nominate and support. - antilived T | C 06:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Very grainy, and lots of blown highlights. The bottom part of the camera is also indistinguishable from the shadow it casts. Finally, since the camera is grey, it should not be photographed on a grey background. Nautica Shad e s 09:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Rather underexposed to be honest. Dark background doesn't help it stand out, either. While still not quite ideal (not enough depth of field to show the entire camera in focus - partially due to the angle), this is a much better photo, and it didn't pass as FP either. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Underexposed and blurry in parts - Adrian Pingstone 12:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
-
Oppose - blurry, colour noise, blown highlights, JPEG artifacting, bad background. Also not very well lit, and not really that notable or pleasing to the eye. —
Vanderdecken∴
∫
ξ
φ
16:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC) - Oppose Unattractive image and looks more like a overexposed magazine advert than an encyclopedia article. -- Iriseyes 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per all above, esp. focus issues. -- Bridgecross 17:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment From the comments it's very interesting to note that many people are saying it's grainy. IMHO it's not camera noise, but it look grainy in reality. The background does look like that in real life (or at least I've seen background like that in real life), the camera look like that and if you look at the rim on the front of the lens you can see it's not grainy there. Also, can anyone point out the major focus issue in the photo? (I know the rim on the left of the camera is slightly out of focus but it is not that important on a shot from this angle) --
antilived
T |
C
01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I see your point, but few people are going to look at this picture and try to figure out why it looks grainy; they will just assume that it is grainy. The photographer should have dusted off the camera before taking the shot. -- Iriseyes 14:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, blurry, not impressive. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per all above. User:Sd31415/Sig 03:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 11:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
A very good product shot of the Canon PowerShot S3 IS, illustrates the subject very well, of high resolution and reasonably sharp. Created by KirinX.
- Nominate and support. - antilived T | C 06:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Very grainy, and lots of blown highlights. The bottom part of the camera is also indistinguishable from the shadow it casts. Finally, since the camera is grey, it should not be photographed on a grey background. Nautica Shad e s 09:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Rather underexposed to be honest. Dark background doesn't help it stand out, either. While still not quite ideal (not enough depth of field to show the entire camera in focus - partially due to the angle), this is a much better photo, and it didn't pass as FP either. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Underexposed and blurry in parts - Adrian Pingstone 12:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
-
Oppose - blurry, colour noise, blown highlights, JPEG artifacting, bad background. Also not very well lit, and not really that notable or pleasing to the eye. —
Vanderdecken∴
∫
ξ
φ
16:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Unattractive image and looks more like a overexposed magazine advert than an encyclopedia article. -- Iriseyes 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per all above, esp. focus issues. -- Bridgecross 17:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment From the comments it's very interesting to note that many people are saying it's grainy. IMHO it's not camera noise, but it look grainy in reality. The background does look like that in real life (or at least I've seen background like that in real life), the camera look like that and if you look at the rim on the front of the lens you can see it's not grainy there. Also, can anyone point out the major focus issue in the photo? (I know the rim on the left of the camera is slightly out of focus but it is not that important on a shot from this angle) --
antilived
T |
C
01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I see your point, but few people are going to look at this picture and try to figure out why it looks grainy; they will just assume that it is grainy. The photographer should have dusted off the camera before taking the shot. -- Iriseyes 14:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, blurry, not impressive. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per all above. User:Sd31415/Sig 03:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 11:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)