Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/EIAJconnector2 edit.jpg
- Reason
- I'm nominating this in good faith (honestly!) not only because it satisfies all FP criteria but because we should recognise quality content, in whatever form, and use it to promote the encyclopedia.
- Proposed caption
- The yellow-tipped EIAJ connector, more formally known as EIAJ RC-5320A, is a small (+/- 2cm) standard DC power supply jack for small appliances, commonly used to adapt transformers converting mains power for laptop computers and peripheral devices. The connectors are supplied in a range of sizes according to power rating of the device; bigger plugs are used for higher voltages, to reduce the risk of using too high a power rating and damaging the appliance.
- Articles this image appears in
- EIAJ connector, Coaxial DC Power Connectors
- Creator
- Mick Stephenson
- Support as nominator mikaultalk 13:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, only because it isn't very informative. Wouldn't a diagram be better than a picture to understand a power connector? Great macro shot, but there just isn't much detail to show. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- You mean like Media:Jack plug.png, with labels etc? I kind of had that image in mind when I set this up (a wiki requested image) but I'm a photographer, not an illustrator.. I could easily label it, if that's the consensus opinion. mikaultalk 17:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support hmm simplicity in design, it is what it is and it looks fine. labels would ruin it, you dint label a building so why this? it is encyclopedic in itself --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Neutral, Weak Support Edit 1 and 2. I'm afraid that for something so common, the picture really must be flawless and it is slightly grainy/artifact-y, but very well taken. On the other hand, I also think that someone reading the article on the EIAJ connector is more interested in how it works or its uses than what it looks like, so an FP diagram might be more appropriate. The edit is quite an improvement, thought my second objection still stands. NauticaShades 01:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)OpposeI see major artifacts all over the pic. Much better pic can be taken. Sorry. Jumping cheese 04:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)- Ah, I was waiting for these comments. You must bear in mind this is a fairly extreme macro shot, so at 100% you're viewing it at 8 to 10 times life size. It will print at at least twice life-size, at which enlargement you don't see the texture of the plastic and metal at all. A raw file with no Jpeg compression has no artifacts and at ISO100 it pretty much has no grain, either. It does have a crude (not shiny) metal barrel and very rough plastic moulding which appear to be grainy, just as they do under a 10x magnifying lupe. Ok, so maybe this would be better in some respects as a drawing, but the photo up for nomination here was requested as such by the article writer (as in, please upload a photo) and is wrongly accused of tech-crimes! mikaultalk 07:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- The are box artifacts all over the black plastic housing and, as you mentioned, on thew metal barrel. Try running the raw file through again to see if the artifacts pop up again. Jumping cheese 19:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support edit 1 Thank you for the time in answering and addressing all the concerns. Edit 1 is certainly better. There is still a noise issue on the plastic housing. However, given the circumstances and explanations, I'll change my vote to support. =) Jumping cheese 04:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The are box artifacts all over the black plastic housing and, as you mentioned, on thew metal barrel. Try running the raw file through again to see if the artifacts pop up again. Jumping cheese 19:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I was waiting for these comments. You must bear in mind this is a fairly extreme macro shot, so at 100% you're viewing it at 8 to 10 times life size. It will print at at least twice life-size, at which enlargement you don't see the texture of the plastic and metal at all. A raw file with no Jpeg compression has no artifacts and at ISO100 it pretty much has no grain, either. It does have a crude (not shiny) metal barrel and very rough plastic moulding which appear to be grainy, just as they do under a 10x magnifying lupe. Ok, so maybe this would be better in some respects as a drawing, but the photo up for nomination here was requested as such by the article writer (as in, please upload a photo) and is wrongly accused of tech-crimes! mikaultalk 07:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment We need to see the whole thing, so could you do a composite shot?--Svetovid 17:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Could you clarify what mean by the "whole thing"? mikaultalk 19:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- From both sides, basically.--Svetovid 14:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- IOC... well yes, I suppose I could and probably would, for a subject that would fail to be fully illustrated without showing its "dark side". I don't understand how this could be an important requirement for this subject..? mikaultalk 19:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- From both sides, basically.--Svetovid 14:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak Support Does a pretty good job - I just a few small concerns with the texture of the white background being visible in the shadow area --Fir0002 04:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak Oppose original, edit 1 Sorry, don't know how I didn't see it before, but the blemish in the connector spoils it for me. FWIW the edit is better tho --Fir0002 12:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Support Edit 2 Only Cloned out blemish --Fir0002 07:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Edit1 added (complete re-conversion from raw file, with better white balance and density) mikaultalk 18:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support. From a compositional point of view, it illustrates the subject about as good as you could expect (or need for that matter). Even in the edit, I can't help but notice a strange noise pattern that doesn't seem to be high ISO noise. It still looks somewhat like jpeg artifacts, but I'm not sure thats what it is. It is quite a small file - around 300kb, so perhaps the compression was higher than necessary. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weird, isn't it? This was shot raw at ISO100, converted to uncompressed tiff and then resized to a max quality jpeg. I think it's something to do with the contrast settings I was using to have a pure white background and enough detail in the black areas. The small file is the result of lots of zeros in the white, rather than heavy compression. It prints very smoothly; I'm at a loss to explain further, but I'm glad you agree it's not a huge big deal :o) mikaultalk 20:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose original, edit 1, edit 2, blemish highlighted There are five EIAJ RC-5320A connectors, but this photo shows only one, and by its use of an adapter that supports positive and negative polarity, implies that the adaptaplug is an integral part of the EIAJ plug. The quality of the photo is irrelevant--this photo does not adequately show the EIAJ plugs.--Peter K. Sheerin, K6WEB (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:EIAJconnector2 edit.jpg MER-C 08:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
