Oppose: unevenly lit; background especially lacking in light - white background that appears white would be ideal. Slightly lateral flash would be more elegant, to ease up on the strict symmetry of the picture.
Samsara (
talk •
contribs)
09:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I dont think the gradiated background is much of a problem, but tastes do very. And yes the lighting is a bit direct but until I get a flash gun and an external sync unit (hopefuly sometime next month) thats about what I'm stuck with. -
Fcb98114:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Actually, I find that toying around presents a few alternatives. There isn't a replacement for "the real McCoy." However, one cheap substitute that I found involves wraping a lamp in tissue, giving very diffused light. The problems are that yes, there is still a gradient (but it's smaller), and that it requires a long exposure (plenty of noise on my camera). Here's an
example. By the way, I know that that photo is poor, but I didn't have a lot of time.
J Are you green? 16:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. There's a hidden message in the linked picture. Challenge: who can identify the source of the hidden message?
J Are you green?18:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Theres nothing "poor" about your picture, I also admire your creativity, I'll have to try your Idea. Thanks. -
Fcb98115:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Is that
Hebrew? Also, try bounced flash, get a business card and a rubber band and wrap the card in front of the flash so it reflects the light up, and jack up the flash exposure compensation to +1.0 - +2.0. --
antilivedT |
C |
G22:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Yup. I was in a hurry, and I grabbed the first sheet of paper that I saw. I didn't notice that the ink had bled through until my hand slipped while adjusting the curves! Strange....
J Are you green?02:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Why not take the photo outdoors in full shade? Shadowless lighting. No need for a flash. No long exposures. Cost: none. Give it a try!
Fg200:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Tennis balls are manufactured and distributed by privet companys. I don't hand make mine and neither do most people. To Suggest that tennis balls are made without a brand name on them is misleading and taking copyright issues, trademark issues, etc. to an extream. -
Fcb98121:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)reply
So do places in the US. Honestly though, this picture only shows one half of a ball and turning it to the blank side is a simple solution. There is nothing extreme about Wikipedia avoiding the appearance of advertising.
pschemp |
talk13:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose for the lighting and the logo. I don't object to logos generally if they are commonly part of the object, but having the logo centered like this is too much like advertising for my taste. --
dm(talk)19:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose: unevenly lit; background especially lacking in light - white background that appears white would be ideal. Slightly lateral flash would be more elegant, to ease up on the strict symmetry of the picture.
Samsara (
talk •
contribs)
09:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I dont think the gradiated background is much of a problem, but tastes do very. And yes the lighting is a bit direct but until I get a flash gun and an external sync unit (hopefuly sometime next month) thats about what I'm stuck with. -
Fcb98114:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Actually, I find that toying around presents a few alternatives. There isn't a replacement for "the real McCoy." However, one cheap substitute that I found involves wraping a lamp in tissue, giving very diffused light. The problems are that yes, there is still a gradient (but it's smaller), and that it requires a long exposure (plenty of noise on my camera). Here's an
example. By the way, I know that that photo is poor, but I didn't have a lot of time.
J Are you green? 16:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. There's a hidden message in the linked picture. Challenge: who can identify the source of the hidden message?
J Are you green?18:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Theres nothing "poor" about your picture, I also admire your creativity, I'll have to try your Idea. Thanks. -
Fcb98115:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Is that
Hebrew? Also, try bounced flash, get a business card and a rubber band and wrap the card in front of the flash so it reflects the light up, and jack up the flash exposure compensation to +1.0 - +2.0. --
antilivedT |
C |
G22:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Yup. I was in a hurry, and I grabbed the first sheet of paper that I saw. I didn't notice that the ink had bled through until my hand slipped while adjusting the curves! Strange....
J Are you green?02:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Why not take the photo outdoors in full shade? Shadowless lighting. No need for a flash. No long exposures. Cost: none. Give it a try!
Fg200:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Tennis balls are manufactured and distributed by privet companys. I don't hand make mine and neither do most people. To Suggest that tennis balls are made without a brand name on them is misleading and taking copyright issues, trademark issues, etc. to an extream. -
Fcb98121:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)reply
So do places in the US. Honestly though, this picture only shows one half of a ball and turning it to the blank side is a simple solution. There is nothing extreme about Wikipedia avoiding the appearance of advertising.
pschemp |
talk13:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose for the lighting and the logo. I don't object to logos generally if they are commonly part of the object, but having the logo centered like this is too much like advertising for my taste. --
dm(talk)19:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply