Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hot chocolate

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hot Chocolate[edit]

Hot Chocolate with marshmallow

Illustrates Hot chocolate quite well

  • Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:07, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Very appealing and a beautiful photo. As you say, it illustrates the subject well - Ian 13:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fredrik | talk 16:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose That thing in the handle of the cup is too distracting. Denni☯ 23:11, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well shot: great texture on the foam. — Asbestos | Talk 10:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yummy! Mgm|(talk) 13:42, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hardly any of the pic is in focus. How could we make a blurred pic a Featured Pic? - Adrian Pingstone 14:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, only small part is in focus. -- Chris 73 Talk 21:08, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry about the low DOF, but due to the low lighting in the cafe (this photo was shot at 1600iso) I had to take the photo at a low aperture value (something like f/3.5) which resulted in the low DOF. --Fir0002 22:25, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Use a tripod and a slow speed for this kind of shots... And even with it DOF is often a problem. Ericd 07:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am aware of the beauty of a tripod, and if I had one on me I would have used it. Shooting at f/32 can produce an OK DOF. --Fir0002 10:44, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
it is not a bad picture, it is just not quite good enough for feature quality. While I am not an expert, would an external flash be helpful alternatively to a tripod? Fir0002, you are a superb photographer, and took many great featured pics, but this one is not quite good enough. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:00, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Well put that way, what more can I say? Thanks.
I'm no expert on photography either, but ordinary flash would usually only result in a burnt out over exposed shot. To do that kind of close up (even though this photo isn't quite macro), you either need to have a proper macro flash ring, or fiddle around with using tissue paper (trying to diffuse the light). I don't have a macro ring, and as I took this photo on a school excursion to investigate local businesses (the cafe that this photo was taken in had only just recently opened) I was supposed to be listening and couldn't be messing around with tissue paper. --Fir0002 01:30, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
There is no reason to have over exposure with a modern TTL flash. With a white mug my fear would be underexposure. A macro flash ring not mandatory but an extension cable to put the flash somewhere else than on the camera is often enought. (BTW buy a small table tripod, properly used it's very useful.) Ericd 14:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the grounds that it doesn't, strictly speaking, actually show any hot chocolate. Deltabeignet 22:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. That's not true. The black is chocolate, and is undoubtedly hot. Superm401 |

Talk 21:35, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what I thought it was, I was beginning to think that the hot chocolate they serve in our cafe is pretty unique. So unique that most people apparently can't recognise it.
Oh, all right, there's a little bit of hot chocolate. Still, the vast majority of the picture is a mug with cream on top; the streaks of hot chocolate don't illustrate the concept well enough. Deltabeignet 22:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Not enough focus and not enough hot chocolate. -- B. Ramerth (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. The lack of focus is kinda sexy, which hot chocolate is. I like the dribble as well. Pity about the spoon (I think it is) in the handle. --Silversmith 23:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Hot_chocolate&oldid=1141918786"