As anyone who has studied
GCSE science will tell you, one of the properties of a metal is that it shines. It would be misleading not to see some shine.
J Milburn (
talk)
23:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Support. Shine's fine. The upper front corner seems a little unsharp, but the high EV and excellent detail elsewhere outweigh that for me. --
Avenue (
talk)
03:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)reply
A VP is only possible on commons, not on en:wikipedia, de:Wikipedia, pl:Wikipedia, .... The value of an object is one of the FP criteria also the high resolution, the DOF and the rare object. Of course your opinion is though accepted. --
Alchemist-hp (
talk)
08:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Edit 1 increased the overexposure in many areas of the nugget itself, ultimately leading to a loss of detail. I realise that the nature of the subject means that some overexposure is inevitable, but nonetheless I prefer the first version.
NotFromUtrecht (
talk)
10:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Apart from the grey background, I did not touch anything else. The nugget is unmodified --
Muhammad(talk)`
It looks different to me when you compare both images at 100%: see the comparison I uploaded. As discussed above, the overexposure isn't itself problem: but when more areas become overexposed, and more white bits join together to form contiguous areas, then detail is lost. I wouldn't oppose Edit 1, but I prefer the original since fine detail on the platinum itself is more important to me than the shade of the background.
NotFromUtrecht (
talk)
16:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)reply
It was additional my new edit over the edit from Muhammad. I made it also somewhat brighter. But the main: we are voting here for the original image! NOT for others. --
Alchemist-hp (
talk)
18:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Didn't notice that, so my apologies for the confusion. I still prefer the original to both versions of Edit 1: I've already stated the reasons why I dislike Edit 1 in its current form, and Muhammad's first version has problems with the detail along the top edge of the platinum.
NotFromUtrecht (
talk)
19:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)reply
As anyone who has studied
GCSE science will tell you, one of the properties of a metal is that it shines. It would be misleading not to see some shine.
J Milburn (
talk)
23:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Support. Shine's fine. The upper front corner seems a little unsharp, but the high EV and excellent detail elsewhere outweigh that for me. --
Avenue (
talk)
03:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)reply
A VP is only possible on commons, not on en:wikipedia, de:Wikipedia, pl:Wikipedia, .... The value of an object is one of the FP criteria also the high resolution, the DOF and the rare object. Of course your opinion is though accepted. --
Alchemist-hp (
talk)
08:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Edit 1 increased the overexposure in many areas of the nugget itself, ultimately leading to a loss of detail. I realise that the nature of the subject means that some overexposure is inevitable, but nonetheless I prefer the first version.
NotFromUtrecht (
talk)
10:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Apart from the grey background, I did not touch anything else. The nugget is unmodified --
Muhammad(talk)`
It looks different to me when you compare both images at 100%: see the comparison I uploaded. As discussed above, the overexposure isn't itself problem: but when more areas become overexposed, and more white bits join together to form contiguous areas, then detail is lost. I wouldn't oppose Edit 1, but I prefer the original since fine detail on the platinum itself is more important to me than the shade of the background.
NotFromUtrecht (
talk)
16:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)reply
It was additional my new edit over the edit from Muhammad. I made it also somewhat brighter. But the main: we are voting here for the original image! NOT for others. --
Alchemist-hp (
talk)
18:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Didn't notice that, so my apologies for the confusion. I still prefer the original to both versions of Edit 1: I've already stated the reasons why I dislike Edit 1 in its current form, and Muhammad's first version has problems with the detail along the top edge of the platinum.
NotFromUtrecht (
talk)
19:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)reply