Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Mango and cross sections.jpg

Mango and its cross section

Original - Mango and its cross section on a white background. From the left: common form of eating a mango ("hedgehog"), mango fruit, mango fruit, mango cross section

Edit 1 cropped down to only a full fruit and cross section

Edit 2 No more blown reds

Reason: Hyper product shot - a lot of views but I think it balances out well. Very good technicals + good ev
Articles this image appears in: Mango
Creator: Fir0002

Support as nominator --Fir0002 07:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit Two Red channel is quite blown across most of the fruits, and generally it is over exposed. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm yeah there are some areas blown in the reds but the detail is there and the fruit looks very natural (to me anyway) so I don't really see the need to prevent that kind of minor clipping. If there's a consensus that they need to be recovered I can do that - although it'll probably come at the cost of off whites. Personally I don't see it as an issue at all and am quite happy with the lighting (kinda an obvious thing to say given I nominated but anyway!) --Fir0002 09:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could muck about with masking to achieve both goals. That is a pain though. I'd rather it a bit below pure white on the background and preserved highlights on the subject. I might try fiddling around with a light box in the near future. The aim would be to get the background significantly brighter than the subject in order to reduce the work in post processing. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm thinking of using more reflective paper in the future - that should "blow out" the background before the subject. But like I said I'm pretty happy with the lighting I'm already getting. --Fir0002 05:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Really shiny reflective paper might give problems with reflections from the item, but semi-gloss stuff might be a good idea. I have heard that black material works better for black backgrounds. I still have some speaker cloth somewhere from my diy audio days and might try that. Next time I am photographing some rocks (still have a big collection to go through), I might try some glass underneath the item (see http://jellybeanracing.com/John/Misc./Canon%2010D/Light%20Box/R8glass_2.jpg for an example with a toy car). You can tell that the author did some cloning on the LHS at the glass edge though. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Toy car looks really good - I'd had that idea at the back of my head for a while too but never got around to trying it out --Fir0002 08:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Inevitably someone would oppose due to distracting reflections though, haha. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Tried the glass thing Noodle snacks (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question-- any particular reason that the leftmost fruit is cut like that? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a common way of eating the fruit - expanded the caption --Fir0002 04:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the article already includes an image of the "hedgehog" cut, it seems redundant here. Also the middle two shots seem somewhat redundant as well. How about an image using just the 2 rightmost shots (similar to your other fruit photos)? Kaldari (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The existing hedgehog image is far inferior technically - so I'd argue it rather than this shot is redundant. This series packs a huge amount of EV into a single shot rather than spreading it out into several moderately useful shots. The primary reason for the middle shots is to balance out the "internal" shots - makes for a more pleasing composition IMO. But yeah it would be pretty easy to just make the standard two shot product - I was just trying to be a bit more creative with this one. I've posted an edit anyway. --Fir0002 04:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Oppose~~ Support E2 A normal and bisected version could be more appropriate. Quality seems good though. I'm not sure if the dark spots on the skin are representative of the mango or if a better sample could be found. Fletcher (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the dark spots are in fact quite common - certainly on all the mangos I've seen. I could clone them out, but I think that would be unnecessarily sacrificing reality for a perceived "perfect mango". --Fir0002 04:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original--Avala (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Noodle snacks. Contrary to nominator's comment, the clipping is not minor. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The clipping is minor, we're talking the almost imperceptible difference of 253 vs 255 - check out the edit and you'll be struggling to see much difference. Judging a picture purely by its histogram is quite foolish --Fir0002 05:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 2 I uploaded a mild curves over the top, as it was still looking over exposed and polluting the nomination with a dozen edits is a bit pointless. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry NS but your version looks over done saturation wise. I've overwritten yours with a more restrained darken which is more faithful to the original scene. --Fir0002 09:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Didn't touch the saturation, buy a monitor calibrator :P Noodle snacks (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Levels has the effect of saturating the colours of the image [1]. Funnily enough I have actually had my monitor calibrated recently with a borrowed Spyder 3 and have access to four other monitors to double check on :P --Fir0002 10:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Interesting. I have four well calibrated monitors sitting on my desk, and a shitty laptop lcd that shows up shadow noise like nothing else. I have wondered about your calibration though, most of your images seem a bit on the bright side, but I guess its preference. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why no pit/stone/seed? I think one of the views should have been a cross section showing the stone. Maedin\^talk 18:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Primarily because it's not a free stone fruit - nor is it practical to saw down the middle through the seed (that kind of force is likely to deform the fruit - and beyond the scope of my rather feeble kitchen knife :)). I think there is sufficient value in seeing how thin the skin is and what the inner flesh looks like --Fir0002 11:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So in summary, mangoes have no pit. Not sure why you'd go into sawing down through a non-existent seed. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 07:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Do we know what species this is? Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 21:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try find that out next time I go shopping - it was some kind of small seed variety... --Fir0002 11:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support edit 2, but I would've prefered to know the species. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 21:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - They must be out of season as I couldn't find any. I'll try email Coles and they might reply... --Fir0002 08:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For something as common as a mango, I think a natural setting picture would carry greater value. --Muhammad(talk) 07:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be difficult to show a cross section in a natural setting! :P I think there is a place for a shot on the tree in the article, but that's not the sum total of what the mango article needs - there's value in a clean and uncluttered image of the fruit and it's cross section as well IMO --Fir0002 11:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand the value of a cross section, hence my support to the peach image but IMO the mango cross section is not very revealing, not very informative and thus IMO not very valuable. --Muhammad(talk) 14:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - real nature photographers bring a chainsaw. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Care to explain :P --Muhammad(talk) 11:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well sometimes when photographing there are annoying elements in the scene that ruin the composition. A chainsaw can be used to remove them (in this case, half a mango). Noodle snacks (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support either edit This is a good series that has been created (with the variety of fruits). I'd almost like to see this as the lead, even though it's a taxbox and there is no article on the fruit itself. In addition, I think a crop including the left two should replace the current image of the hedgehog cut not only because the image is technically better, but the hedgehog in Fir's version is far superior to the other one. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 07:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK I've got an ID for the type - it's a Calypso Mango --Fir0002 07:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's the species, it looks more like the brand name: See this. However, the website does mention that it is of the "Kensington Pride" cultivar (mentioned in List of mango cultivars). Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 20:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Using that, I discover that is of the Mangifera indica species, based on this and this. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 21:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I added the image to those 2 articles, Mangifera indica and List of mango cultivars. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 21:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Mango and cross section edit.jpg MER-C 03:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]