Comment: At the very least, the date should be removed.
J Milburn (
talk) 20:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Very poor lighting, with harsh shadows and little detail in the face. The date should indeed be removed.
Alvesgaspar (
talk) 20:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Don't think the lighting is quite as poor as Alvesgasper does, but it's still not top. Also, the date, as has been said.
Anoldtreeok (
talk) 04:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Cropped the image and added some light to it.
Hariya1234 (
talk) 04:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Strong support. The lighting is fantastic - it fits the subject perfectly. As the date's gone, there's nothing wrong with it now.
Aaadddaaammm (
talk) 09:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Strong support -- Background and subject are set out excellently combined with the lighting make the picture lively.
Gnbonline (
talk) 19:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but to create an account just to support this picture looks like cheating to me. --
Alvesgaspar (
talk) 19:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Come now, that's hardly welcoming. The votes of anonymous users are often ignored, which is already bitey enough, but that means that, should someone want to take page, they should create an account. The weighting of this vote, unless you have evidence of anything untoward, should really be decided by the closer.
J Milburn (
talk) 21:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Must say this, I think this vote should be ignored. It's my friend.
Comment. I can see why others dislike the heavy shadows. Would it not be possible to lift these slightly in post-processing? I've made a very quick attempt at doing doing so in edit one -- what do people think?
NotFromUtrecht (
talk) 19:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, it is much better. But the overall quality is way below the FP standards, in my opinion. --
Alvesgaspar (
talk) 19:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Quality as in the resolution or the picture itself?
Hariya1234 (
talk) 02:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Not the resolution but, in my opinion, the framing and the background (besides the harsh lighting). On the other hand there is little expression in this face.
Alvesgaspar (
talk) 07:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Support either – the heavy shadows on the face are not ideal (perhaps use a bit of fill flash next time?), but the portrait has good EV and I actually quite like the rather plain composition.
NotFromUtrecht (
talk) 12:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Support alt only per NotFromUtrech turn your flash on at -2 stops or so.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 23:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment[[JJHarrison, not sure what you mean by using flash at -2 stops. As in, probably by -2 stops you mean the exposure value, you mean to say that meter the face to -2 stops and then use flash? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hariya1234 (
talk •
contribs) 19:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Meter the face as usual. Your camera can also adjust how bright the flash is ("flash exposure compensation") relative to the scene. For fill flash you don't want it as bright, so set it to -2 stops or so.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 23:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Oh alright, Thanks man, flash compensation was something that I've not used often.
Hariya1234 (
talk) 06:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)reply
I'd suggest using it almost always whilst out in the sun.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 06:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Ignoring Gnbonline's support per Hariya's comment.
Makeemlighter (
talk) 08:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Unless you're regarding Gnbonline as a
meatpuppet the vote should probably be counted. With due respect Hariya hasn't really been a regular here either so isn't particularly aware of the processes, and plenty of other people vote on their 'friends' images. Having said which, this also raises the issue that FPC has again become simply a 'vote count'. --
jjron (
talk) 08:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment: At the very least, the date should be removed.
J Milburn (
talk) 20:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Very poor lighting, with harsh shadows and little detail in the face. The date should indeed be removed.
Alvesgaspar (
talk) 20:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Don't think the lighting is quite as poor as Alvesgasper does, but it's still not top. Also, the date, as has been said.
Anoldtreeok (
talk) 04:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Cropped the image and added some light to it.
Hariya1234 (
talk) 04:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Strong support. The lighting is fantastic - it fits the subject perfectly. As the date's gone, there's nothing wrong with it now.
Aaadddaaammm (
talk) 09:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Strong support -- Background and subject are set out excellently combined with the lighting make the picture lively.
Gnbonline (
talk) 19:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but to create an account just to support this picture looks like cheating to me. --
Alvesgaspar (
talk) 19:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Come now, that's hardly welcoming. The votes of anonymous users are often ignored, which is already bitey enough, but that means that, should someone want to take page, they should create an account. The weighting of this vote, unless you have evidence of anything untoward, should really be decided by the closer.
J Milburn (
talk) 21:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Must say this, I think this vote should be ignored. It's my friend.
Comment. I can see why others dislike the heavy shadows. Would it not be possible to lift these slightly in post-processing? I've made a very quick attempt at doing doing so in edit one -- what do people think?
NotFromUtrecht (
talk) 19:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, it is much better. But the overall quality is way below the FP standards, in my opinion. --
Alvesgaspar (
talk) 19:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Quality as in the resolution or the picture itself?
Hariya1234 (
talk) 02:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Not the resolution but, in my opinion, the framing and the background (besides the harsh lighting). On the other hand there is little expression in this face.
Alvesgaspar (
talk) 07:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Support either – the heavy shadows on the face are not ideal (perhaps use a bit of fill flash next time?), but the portrait has good EV and I actually quite like the rather plain composition.
NotFromUtrecht (
talk) 12:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Support alt only per NotFromUtrech turn your flash on at -2 stops or so.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 23:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment[[JJHarrison, not sure what you mean by using flash at -2 stops. As in, probably by -2 stops you mean the exposure value, you mean to say that meter the face to -2 stops and then use flash? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hariya1234 (
talk •
contribs) 19:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Meter the face as usual. Your camera can also adjust how bright the flash is ("flash exposure compensation") relative to the scene. For fill flash you don't want it as bright, so set it to -2 stops or so.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 23:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Oh alright, Thanks man, flash compensation was something that I've not used often.
Hariya1234 (
talk) 06:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)reply
I'd suggest using it almost always whilst out in the sun.
JJ Harrison (
talk) 06:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Ignoring Gnbonline's support per Hariya's comment.
Makeemlighter (
talk) 08:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Unless you're regarding Gnbonline as a
meatpuppet the vote should probably be counted. With due respect Hariya hasn't really been a regular here either so isn't particularly aware of the processes, and plenty of other people vote on their 'friends' images. Having said which, this also raises the issue that FPC has again become simply a 'vote count'. --
jjron (
talk) 08:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)reply