I discovered this image from wikipedia commons while looking at the page for
shuffle, in which it is the header image. The image author is
Todd Klassy. Both very detailed and high resolution while displaying the way the shuffle is performed, both in hand positioning and due to the blur of the card that had just been shuffled along with the intertwining cards below. The image is taken during a game at a bar need Madison, Wisconsin.
Oppose, extremely low depth of field means only one hand is in focus. The cards aren't just blurry from the motion, they're out of the focus of the camera. The fine focused details are on his left knuckles, bringing attention to them instead of the cards. The photo is arty instead of encyclopedic, and as far as resolution, it's nothing special.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy)
15:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Per Gyr. I usually have no problem with narrow DOF as long as the intended subject is clear, but one hand is barely in focus. Could be more encyclopedic if it were an animation showing shuffling technique. --
160.79.219.13316:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment, What's the copyright status on this image? The flickr page states "all rights reserved" and nowhere does it mention a special permission for wikipedia.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy)
21:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)reply
The photographer's profile says "My photographs were once licensed for general use through Creative Commons, however, some people abused those rights." It looks like this was uploaded before he changed the license, so technically it's valid to continue using it under CC-BY, though it makes verification more difficult. --
Davepape04:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, much too dark. I believe there could be a much better picture of this type of shuffle. Not FP standard.--Andeh16:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Great pic, and geez it's always the same chant about DOF, how does it lessen the encyclopedic value? It doesn't it enhances it, by making pats that matter clearly stand out! --
Dschwen09:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)reply
The cards are out of focus??? Huh? Sorry, I cannot confirm this observation. The right side has a tad of motion blur, but if you look at the top line shadow/brightness transition you'll have to concur that it is perfectly in focus! --
Dschwen10:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)reply
compare the sharpness of the near hand, the cards, and the far hand. the sharpest focus is on the near knuckles, dropping off from there. That draws attention away from what we're trying to show.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy)
11:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Night Gyr, you may want to add in my humble opinion, given that your views are not representative of the wikipedia community
Ahadland20:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)reply
I discovered this image from wikipedia commons while looking at the page for
shuffle, in which it is the header image. The image author is
Todd Klassy. Both very detailed and high resolution while displaying the way the shuffle is performed, both in hand positioning and due to the blur of the card that had just been shuffled along with the intertwining cards below. The image is taken during a game at a bar need Madison, Wisconsin.
Oppose, extremely low depth of field means only one hand is in focus. The cards aren't just blurry from the motion, they're out of the focus of the camera. The fine focused details are on his left knuckles, bringing attention to them instead of the cards. The photo is arty instead of encyclopedic, and as far as resolution, it's nothing special.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy)
15:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Per Gyr. I usually have no problem with narrow DOF as long as the intended subject is clear, but one hand is barely in focus. Could be more encyclopedic if it were an animation showing shuffling technique. --
160.79.219.13316:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment, What's the copyright status on this image? The flickr page states "all rights reserved" and nowhere does it mention a special permission for wikipedia.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy)
21:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)reply
The photographer's profile says "My photographs were once licensed for general use through Creative Commons, however, some people abused those rights." It looks like this was uploaded before he changed the license, so technically it's valid to continue using it under CC-BY, though it makes verification more difficult. --
Davepape04:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, much too dark. I believe there could be a much better picture of this type of shuffle. Not FP standard.--Andeh16:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Great pic, and geez it's always the same chant about DOF, how does it lessen the encyclopedic value? It doesn't it enhances it, by making pats that matter clearly stand out! --
Dschwen09:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)reply
The cards are out of focus??? Huh? Sorry, I cannot confirm this observation. The right side has a tad of motion blur, but if you look at the top line shadow/brightness transition you'll have to concur that it is perfectly in focus! --
Dschwen10:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)reply
compare the sharpness of the near hand, the cards, and the far hand. the sharpest focus is on the near knuckles, dropping off from there. That draws attention away from what we're trying to show.
Night Gyr (
talk/
Oy)
11:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Night Gyr, you may want to add in my humble opinion, given that your views are not representative of the wikipedia community
Ahadland20:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)reply