Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Semar Kris

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2011 at 10:48:49 (UTC)

Original - A decorative kris with the handle shaped like Semar

ALT - Original with blue background

ALT 2 Another, closer cutout

ALT 3 White background, no cutout

ALT 4 More neutral background, no cutout

Reason: I think this could be a featured picture because it is of high resolution, shows the subject clearly, shows the sheathe (which many of our other pictures of kris lack, thus giving greater EV), and is interesting (the blade design, unique handle etc.). The original can be seen here, and we could also use this version, with an off-white background.
Articles in which this image appears: Kris, Semar
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Weaponry
Creator: Crisco 1492

Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support high res, good EV. Pine^talk 07:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The cut-out job from the original blue background is, frankly, pretty average. Looks like an auto-select tool was used and the selection never cleaned up. There's a lot very rough edges on both objects, and colour mismatch near the top of the blade. To have a realistic chance I think this really needs to be either redone properly, or nominated as the original image with the original background. I feel though that original lighting and sharpness are a little off too. --jjron (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best on that (2 hours+), so I will bring this to the Graphics Lab. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added the original as an ALT, and am trying to upload another picture which may be under better lighting conditions. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative source image added for cut out, or maybe consideration if you prefer it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, some pros, some cons to the alt source. Shadows are less harsh and b/g is more pleasant, but the actual objects are both duller, yet with more direct flash reflection, I'm assuming the result of a more overhead flash use. I'm not sure which one I prefer overall (assuming a cut-out is done, otherwise the blue b/g itself is off-putting in that one). I'd have a go at the cut-out myself, but don't have the time to spare. --jjron (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lighting, probably. The original was taken at roughly 12 noon, while the alt was at 5pm-ish, about 45 minutes before sunset. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tossed in my effort at cleanup (ALT 2) into the mix. JBarta (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lines seem cleaner but colors seem very different in Alt 2. Pine^talk 23:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Could we tone the red down a bit? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it was too red. I tried lessening the bluish cast from the original and overdid it. Manipulating colors is not my strong point. Your fix looks much better. JBarta (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Thanks for the cutout too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made a further edit (21:21, 29 August 2011) that reintroduced the bluish cast. Your edit of 20:38, 29 August 2011 was good. Why do you feel it needs to be close to the original when the original is arguably flawed? I think you should revert it back to your edit of 20:38, 29 August 2011. JBarta (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undone. Must be my monitor, it looked better that way. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A size reference would be helpful-- simply adding the dimensions of the object to the image page would be sufficient. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Both cut outs are obvious in my view and the blue background one is pretty horrible. Since this is a self nomination I assume you can shoot this again. You really need to stop playing with photoshop and toss it on a white background, like paper, or better, white acrylic. A lot less work than the photoshop route. The lighting and detail is good. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2 was cut out from a white background (and not by me). I will try another reshoot tomorrow, as it is nighttime here now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALT 2 was cut out from this. Maybe obvious as a cutout, but for a cutout I think it's not all bad. At any rate, I agree that a nice photo on a white backgound would be preferrable to a cutout on a white background. JBarta (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I touched up the source for the ALT. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So did I, then I used curves, then I used the dodge tool on the background where needed. I uploaded over the top to avoid too many edits etc, but you can upload it separately if you like. It is easier to do that than cut stuff out entirely. Getting the lighting right will save a lot of effort for things like this though. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the touch-ups. ALT4 looks the best IMHO. Regarding lighting, I will try for the next image but I only have a mid-range camera. Do you think ALT4 is good enough? Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think so. Camera shouldn't matter, just a light tent (possibly home made) and some of those cheap halogen work lights shining on to it should work pretty well for nearly no money. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alt 4 You might need to run a new nomination with just that given the time spent editing etc. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worth re-nominating the best edit. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]