Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tiffen UV filter

Tiffen UV filter edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2013 at 06:32:51 (UTC)

Original – This is a Tiffen 52mm UV filter resting on a Canon front end cap. This particular filter fits on many popular lenses including both the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake lens and the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II prime lens.

Edit 1 – Redone with cleaner subject and better light.

Reason: This is a high quality image with high EV.
Articles in which this image appears: Tiffen
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment
Creator: TonyTheTiger

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks dirty, please clean the filters and re-shoot. --Muhammad(talk) 06:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the background should be a bit better lit (to make it more pure white)... or that can be handled in post-processing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will get a whiter background when I have sunlight. If not, I will need processing help, unless boosting the ISO would help.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have saved over edit1 twice. The day is very overcast. Maybe I can get even better light over the next few days. I can also retry this evening. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded edit1 as a new file and reverted the original.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dust specks all over the lens cap, and what is the lens cap doing here anyway? It adds nothing but confusion to the composition. I also note that this image has only been in the article for a day. By the way Tony, can you please stop spamming FP nominations for photos you've taken of your camera equipment until at least one of them passes? They all have similar flaws. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- At least it's not spam of crap photos he's taken of Chicago again. Fuck me, that was beyond annoying. 129.234.235.156 (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - First note that these are with a DSLR instead of a point and shoot. Second, I did these three photo equipment ones together because I started with the 40mm. Then I realized that I had a four-day window to do a obverse/reverse image with the 50 mm. The filter goes with these two lenses so since I was shooting them, I did the filter too.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I included the cap based on the talk page advice of Jujutacular. I can redo without the cap. P.S. I had no intention of nominating any other equipment. These three sort of go together. They are my two prime lenses that use the same filter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If I were to do just the filter, should I do it flat or on its side?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You'd probably be better off asking editors who specialise in this kind of thing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography given that you're talking about a completely different photo from that under consideration here. Nick-D (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Sorry but no chance of promotion. When you've got the perfect shot nominate it then --Muhammad(talk) 08:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WIthdrawn. Jujutacular (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]