Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2017 Nikon D5500.jpg

File:2017 Nikon D5500.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2017 at 21:58:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2017 Nikon D5500.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2017 Nikon D5500.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
•  Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Yet another camera I'd love to have... lNeverCry 06:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose sorry, I see nothing special in this that would make it FP-worthy, as this image could be produced by many with even lighting and a DSLR, and the composition is boring. I have many of these images for ebay-auctions. It is a good QI and VI but not FP in my opinion. FP needs wow, something that places it among our finest. Simple but good studio shots alone don't do it I'm afraid. Would it have exceptional technical quality that shows much more detail, I'd vote differently. – Lucas^T 11:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Lucas. There's nothing particularly wrong with this, but it's just a pretty straight-forward picture of a common subject. It deserves its QI and VI badge, and could possibly become FP at several more Wikipedias, but for FP at Commons it lacks "WOW". --El Grafo (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I don't see it as any less FP-worthy than this one. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Well, I'd probably stay neutral on that one. At least the Sony is perfectly clean and there's something about the lighting that makes it look much more … uhm … "professional" to my eyes (though I don't really know what exactly that something is). --El Grafo (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Daniel Case, El Grafo, I think the pure white background makes the difference, the photo here has a grey background, making it look more dull/dirty. Having a white background—shadows dissolving into it—is a step up in photographic quality in my book (as long as the object stays well defined) and that is what removes you "seeing" how the sausage is made (the paper background being used). There is a line in perception somewhere. Consider this as a clearer example: File:Canon EF 70-200mm f4 IS USM.jpg – Lucas^T 20:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per others --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose very good photo but not a FP for me. Reproducible by anyone at any time--Ermell (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Well managed DoF, background, and shadows. I wouldn't say it's manageable "by anyone at any time". --A.Savin 21:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects