Redirect to:
This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
{{humour}} {{humorantipolicy}} {{humorous essay}} A DoF icon has been created. Use {{User:Hi878/DoF Icon}} to put it on your user page. It is based on...
Click to read more »More DOF than than this one Nominate and support. - Digon3 16:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Comments: It's still a bit lacking in DOF - since this is an irregular...
Click to read more »15:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Do we need focus stacking for food photography? I see many pictures like this with bit of shallow DoF. Anyway, it's a matter of...
Click to read more »and DoF (due to diffraction softening). f/11 (the aperture setting that was used) is right in the sweet spot for an SLR sensor. If you pushed it to f/16...
Click to read more »At this magnification, the DoF is very shallow regardless of the aperture. Even if I had shot at f/16 or f/22, the DoF would still be shallow. It could...
Click to read more »DoF is only a few mm. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Support - The only way to get more in focus is to use a smaller aperture (f/14...
Click to read more »shame that f/11 or f/13 wasn't used as the DOF could be improved. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Support - per Diliff - DoF is a bit shallow...
Click to read more »dead-on, but the DoF could've been slightly higher (at the cost of center sharpness), but I needed the fast shutter speed. Compare the DoF to other FPs:...
Click to read more »ideal being f/8-f/11 for general shots (not necessarily macro), but I figured you'd have to get a pretty high f-stop to compensate for reduced DOF at that...
Click to read more »contrast between the background and the highlights is distracting. Also the DoF is a little shallow. It looks pretty with the background onions out of focus...
Click to read more »branch and the bits of the fungus/lichen itself that are on the edge of the DoF. Either way it is distracting. At F8 on a Casio EX-Z1080 I am not sure whether...
Click to read more »sample leaves for added encyclopaedic value. Nice colours, and sharpness and DOF seem right. Proposed caption A common lilac bush (Syringa vulgaris) showing...
Click to read more »But usually the short focal length and the high f-number in human eyes prevents one from noticing DOF in everyday situations. In this case, however, Original...
Click to read more »2011 (UTC) Comment DOF is quite narrow and in my experience, for smaller subjects, up to f/13 usually provided decent sharpness and DOF --Muhammad(talk)...
Click to read more »limitation of the DOF available at f/11 - which is the largest practical DOF available. --Fir0002 08:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Oppose shallow DOF compared to your...
Click to read more »December 2007 (UTC) Comment Image was shot at f/13 - as large DOF as possible without degrading quality. Furthermore f/22 wouldn't have got everything in focus...
Click to read more »April 2007 (UTC) Oppose I hate to be the first to comment about the shallow DOF, but someone is always first... --Janke | Talk 21:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)...
Click to read more »blowns..? Similarly DOF comes from f/11 and can't really be improved upon. And to be honest I'm actually quite satisfied with the DOF in this shot because...
Click to read more »DOF concerns are just too much. Sharkface217 19:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Oppose - DOF, but a lovely shot nonetheless. Try a reshoot with a higher f-number...
Click to read more »7 April 2009 (UTC) Weak Oppose. Great quality macro as always, but the DOF/angle is unfortunate. It shows the feeding very well but not the fly's entire...
Click to read more »nominator CPacker (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Weak support Some minor DOF problems with the rear half of the animal, but the detail and color otherwise...
Click to read more »ends on 8 Mar 2014 at 12:36:05 (UTC) Reason High res image with shallow DoF emphasising the watchful stare. Eye-catching (no pun) in an article at small...
Click to read more »Question and Info a macro photo with f/6.3? No, DOF will be allways to low. I think it is better to use f/20 or f/22 and perhaps using a flash. --Alchemist-hp...
Click to read more »very tricky with DOF. Many churches are dark enough anyway (not this one, though) and I'm not keen on having unsharp parts even at f/16. Of course you...
Click to read more »this with a natural habitat background and/or more DoF (f/7.1 is a too shallow for this subject, f/11 would have been better.). (BTW, just because an...
Click to read more »foreground snow. The road and peaks in the distance are sharp. Shot at f/16, I think the DoF is adequate given the scene. --Tagooty (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2024...
Click to read more »emphasize, the issue was with the DOF. The flat plane was a recommendation for reducing DOF issues, as was the higher F-number. You could also take a step...
Click to read more »high shutter speeds (for sharpness) and low F numbers (for DOF) but that is typically not possibly to do in the wild. Working in the studio, with controlled...
Click to read more »x 2.592 px and the image: 4.378 × 2.484 px. The DOF can't be also at f/2 and 50mm so large. The DOF calculator say me max. 0.7cm, we see here 3-6cm!...
Click to read more »Shortcuts WP:WASSWP:WASS WP:FUNWORDWP:FUNWORD WP:DOF/WAWP:DOF/WA WP:SBWAWP:SBWA The Department of Fun is dedicated to providing the community of Wikipedians...
Click to read more »emphasize, the issue was with the DOF. The flat plane was a recommendation for reducing DOF issues, as was the higher F-number. You could also take a step...
Click to read more »support also. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 13:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Support The DoF is pretty shallow, but the pose makes up for it. --Avenue (talk) 12:34, 6...
Click to read more »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)...
Click to read more »Comment I'm sure this has some kind of DOF issue... 8thstar 01:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Shot at f/13 for as much DOF as possible without compromising sharpness...
Click to read more »resolution can be done. DOF and perfect sharpness is nearly impossible to get right for a butterfly - it was already shot at f/13, 1/500 sec. They rarely...
Click to read more »nominator --Kumioko (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Weak oppose - Shallow DoF (pehaps due camera aperture): the foreground of the image is blurry. But...
Click to read more »speed film than 64). Zakolantern 17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Higher f-stop means more DOF not the other way around. --Dschwen 20:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Yes—remember...
Click to read more »critical. Matt Deres (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Oppose DOF is a bit shallow, f/4 for 150mm semi-macro doesn't really work. This should be a relatively...
Click to read more »no-nonsense editing needs to take place. I respect what you have done over at the DoF, but if you plan on becoming an admin, please remember to edit the encyclopedia...
Click to read more »Good choice. Brandmeistertalk 17:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Support per nom. DOF is a tad shallow, and sadly with the EXIF stripped I can't tell what aperture...
Click to read more »just on the leaves in the background, but on the petals too, very shallow DOF). For a subject that is motionless, should be able to get crisper detail...
Click to read more »(Chris Kreider) 15:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Weak support. I wouldn't call the DOF issues minor. All tail and wing feathers are out of focus. Otherwise a excellent...
Click to read more »Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Republic F-84 Thunderjet/archive1. (I unfortunately do not have any relevant sources myself). Hog Farm Talk...
Click to read more »(UTC) Comments I think the background is just too busy and distracting. The DoF is a bit too wide. - (Giligone (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)) I will...
Click to read more »significantly that it was nominated here? Also if the eye is the subject the DOF is a bit too shallow. --Dschwen 06:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Compound eye...
Click to read more »lighting reflected that. Erm, how would you rejig the composition? can't do much about DoF I concede...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Not...
Click to read more »support. howcheng {chat} 16:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Support. Despite narrow DOF and barely meeting size requirements, it's good, and illustrative. Outriggr...
Click to read more »lighting set-up, provide a stool or spot on the floor, use a highish DOF, then you can do these things en masse, hundreds or thousands at a time, without even...
Click to read more »areas on the raindrops in the bottom. FPC voters can be really fussy about DoF issues. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)...
Click to read more »2018 (UTC) Comment – Petals look blurry. DOF? Sca (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Comment - Yes. Though shot at f/8@55mm the focus was on the front stamen...
Click to read more »losing an image that some Wikipedian could do better. :) I also think that an ideal image demonstrating shallow DOF would be free of the distraction of a human...
Click to read more »Reason Good quality, EV and DOF. Leaves and flowers together increase the EV Articles this image appears in Celosia Creator Muhammad Mahdi Karim Support...
Click to read more »pretty blurred due to low-light DOF. Sca (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Depth of field. I'd like to see someone get f/8 in that lighting without cranking...
Click to read more »blurriness. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC) As I mentioned above, that's unlikely due to technical limitations in DOF for macro photography...
Click to read more »boot foreground and the DOF/sharpness seems somehow lacking. From an empirical guess at the focus plane and the DOF at f/11 it does seem that the mouthparts...
Click to read more »December 2007 (UTC) Oppose, sharp where it's in focus, but unfortunately the DOF is too shallow. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 13:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)...
Click to read more »image with excellent sharpness and good subject isolation without serious DOF issues. Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 02:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Support...
Click to read more »shallow DoF can help reduce the impact of reflections in situations like this. -- Solipsist 1 July 2005 07:40 (UTC) Support both, esp. B&W. James F. (talk)...
Click to read more »composition - I'm not even promoting that aspect. All I'm saying is that the DOF draws the attention to the most interesting part of the animal (it's head...
Click to read more »Peripitus (Talk) 00:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Oppose all versions. Limited DOF can not be fixed. Squirrels are easy targets (with a bit of practice). Have...
Click to read more »majority of the underside of the subject. Image10 is very crisp and the DoF is perfectly centered on the head and thorax. Don't forget that the image...
Click to read more »13:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Oppose all - Bad flash lighting, insufficient DOF, tight crops. It would be nice to make the Exif info available - Alvesgaspar...
Click to read more »more DOF is focus stack (this is already at f/16 and a very high quality lens). Not sure focus stack should be the norm at FPC. And not saying DOF isn't...
Click to read more »misnomer. In a close-up photograph, the DOF straddles a plane parallel to the image plane; with tilt, the DOF is wedge shaped about a plane at an angle...
Click to read more »Support - Shallow DOF is expected at f/4, 600 mm. The bird is in focus. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC) Short DOF fails criterion 3...
Click to read more »shot though — for once I disagree with Janke's verdict and I think the DOF does enough for the subject & the people in the background add value :-) ~...
Click to read more »January 2006 (UTC) Oppose yeah, the background should be blurred by reducing DOF. As for the cropping, the uncropped version is ok, makes it look like there...
Click to read more »Geoffroi 09:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Support, though if you can get a bit more DoF in front of the bird, I think it'll improve your compositions. The immediate...
Click to read more »machines - 3 DOF and 5/6 DOF. "DOF" means "degrees of freedom" and describes the number of ways in which the cutting head can move. A 3 DOF machine can...
Click to read more »at f/18 you'd still get far less of the lizard in focus (remember from snout to tail he measures 25cm!) - f/18 doesn't give you that much more DOF than...
Click to read more »Oppose Shallow DOF, some parts look completely blown and distracting background. --Muhammad(talk) 06:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Shallow DOF and distracting...
Click to read more »And what's the point of shooting a landscape at f/2.8 and 1/500 sec, while you can easily increase the DoF ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)...
Click to read more »misrepresentation. As for DOF, the focus of the image is in focus, thats enough for me, and I'm usually one to jump on images for having too shallow a DOF. JFitch (talk)...
Click to read more »give you different bokeh, but I don't think they can do anything about the basic geometry of DOF. -- BenRG (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Alright,...
Click to read more »onion in half to show the cross section, and did not use such a shallow DoF. Nominate and support. - Andrew c 16:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Comments:...
Click to read more »touched it. Probably DOF problem --Muhammad(talk) 17:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Weak Oppose All I do like this shot but for me the DOF is just way too shallow...
Click to read more »Oppose Overall too soft and DOF is unnecessarily low - both issues I think can be attributed to the IMO poor choice of f/3.5. Also noise in the background...
Click to read more »speed and a smaller aperture - f/4 doesn't have sufficient DOF and sharpness IMO. I think something like 1/20s and f/6.3 could have been used - and possibly...
Click to read more »at... f/5.6 or f/6.3 or something and with a relatively long focal length lens somewhere between 150-300mm because of this. There is a limited DOF (Depth...
Click to read more »14:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Weak Support Support Edit 1. Although the DOF and composition are not ideal, the difficulty of the shot and it's EV makes...
Click to read more »portrait. The only possible complaint in my opinion would be the shallow DOF, but it is certainly an artistic choice. I'd like to request the closer leave...
Click to read more »whether DOF is going to be an issue, and I try to stop down at least to f/5.6-f/8 for any daylight shot for reasons of sharpness as much as DOF. Diliff...
Click to read more »Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 05:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC) Support Excellent DoF, nice light and composition. -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2025...
Click to read more »nominator – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Comment - The DoF on the topside of the doll feels pretty good, the bottom feels a bit soft...
Click to read more »shallow DOF in very close macro work. This image was taken at almost my lens' minimum focal distance (1:1 macro) and a single image taken at f/11 would...
Click to read more »(UTC) Oppose The quality is not good. Slight motion blur and very shallow DOF. F/2.8 for something like this is just too large an aperture. Sorry --Muhammad(talk)...
Click to read more »warts and all.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Support DoF is a bit weak but very striking view. I prefer the original -- Basile Morin...
Click to read more »background … which this photo does very nicely, yet still gives us a sense of placement in the environment. In fact, the DOF as it stands makes this photo...
Click to read more »flaws, especially for a photo that old (very few water stains and dust). The DoF could be better, but technology was limited back then, and I believe that...
Click to read more »support the I'd prefer a less tight crop, especially at the bottom, and the DOF seems a bit shallow. Not enough for an oppose though. Time3000 (talk) 16:57...
Click to read more »photographer has done well to get the eyes in focus considering the very narrow DoF. But why so narrow that the nose and ears are out of focus? Because the background...
Click to read more »October 2006 (UTC) Oppose Per Gyr. I usually have no problem with narrow DOF as long as the intended subject is clear, but one hand is barely in focus...
Click to read more »white balance & contrast. The brightness isn't the only problem. There are DoF issues, and the resolution is not high enough to show details. ZooFari 23:42...
Click to read more »removed the watermark. Diako « Talk » 08:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Oppose DOF and the overexposed part of the image are insufficient. --Alchemist-hp (talk)...
Click to read more »technical quality and enc value but also has strong aesthetic elements too. The DOF off the leaf edge creates a pleasing effect as it merges into the background...
Click to read more »support any one. Thoughts: the first is a bit lower-res, but has greater DoF. Option 4 has a nice mix of colors, but not much of a view into the flower...
Click to read more »*Weak Support Scale A bit more DOF issues than I would like to see in this image, however overall good enough for FP, and I do think that the scale adds to...
Click to read more »support. - Digon3 01:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Comments: Do you have a version with a larger DOF? That's my primary concern right now. J Are you green?...
Click to read more »shallower your DoF will be, there is no "optimum". DoF can be calculated from F stop, focal length and target distance. Decrease the f stop, decrease...
Click to read more »September 2018 (UTC) Comment – Nice image of subject, but background blur (DOF) is extreme. Sca (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC) I absolutely disagree...
Click to read more »Kaldari. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Oppose - DOF a problem --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Oppose per Kaldari...
Click to read more »does have some "wow", just not quite there in either article, unfortunately. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose - Shallow DoF....
Click to read more »would prefer for the taxobox. The main weaknesses I see are shallow DOF (taken at F/4.0 perhaps wasn't ideal, but the focus is in the right spot) and the...
Click to read more »has enough going for it. I would like to appeal to people not to oppose on DOF grounds, as IMO the shallow focus is eye-catching and the angle, which would...
Click to read more »f/2.8 ISO1,000, 400mm focal length. Explains the why of your concerns. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 22:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose Good EV and DOF. Way...
Click to read more »Shortcut WP:A+FWP:A+F Shortcut WP:A+F-MoMAWP:A+F-MoMA To sign up for this event: Log in or create an account. Wikimedia’s gender trouble is well-documented...
Click to read more »100mm f/2.8 -> 200mm f/5.6), but how does the DOF change? In the example is the DOF at similar levels to 200mm f/2.8 or does it somehow have more DOF and...
Click to read more »Shortcuts WP:WASSWP:WASS WP:FUNWORDWP:FUNWORD WP:DOF/WAWP:DOF/WA Documentationviewedithistorypurge This wiki template is to ease the use of text counting...
Click to read more »but poor dof e.g. necklace. Crop. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Oppose – Interesting face but poor comp., subpar DOF. – Sca (talk)...
Click to read more »beyond just being a pretty good shot of the subject (lighting, sharpness/DoF, color, etc.). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Not Promoted...
Click to read more »for stuff like this!) Second, the shallow DOF. If photographed in nature, I might excuse a somewhat shallow DOF, but not in a "studio shot" like this. --Janke...
Click to read more »lower DOF, actually... DSLR have much bigger sensors than point-and-shoots, which means they need longer focal length lenses and therefore less DOF. The...
Click to read more »should be a bit cropped off the bottom. I can see how the DOF got so shallow... f3.2 at 200 mm will do that. I'd have gone with f4.5 or 5.6 at 200mm, with an...
Click to read more »want to stop down to F/64, (only possible with a good SLR macro lens) you're going to have to make some sacrifices concerning DOF. Although I understand...
Click to read more »opinion as showing the entire antennas does not allow enough room for the rest of the features in thumbnail. The DOF is good, showing the required areas...
Click to read more »of the small DOF. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC) As I mentioned to Moondigger, I'm just wondering how exactly the DOF is affecting the...
Click to read more »12:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Oppose Too soft. DOF is low. Dusty777 22:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Comment DOF isn't the problem, it was taken at f22 which...
Click to read more »--Muhammad(talk) 07:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Weak oppose - It shouldn´t have shallow DoF. The leg of the front of the image is blurry as well as the antenas. - ☩Damërung...
Click to read more »Tomer T Support — Tomer T 22:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Comment, I find how the DOF was done to be distracting. The amount of distortion in the foreground isn't...
Click to read more »12 May 2025 (UTC) Support. MER-C 17:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC) Support Bokeh, DoF and light. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC) Support —Hounaam...
Click to read more »nominator Laitche (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Oppose Unfortunately, DOF is all too shallow, that kills it for me... --Janke | Talk 18:09, 22 February...
Click to read more »apparent). Also, the trees on the left are a bit blurry. If this is intentional DoF, it looks terrible. Jerry teps (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose....
Click to read more »how difficult would it be to shoot it again, with a tripod, at say f/15+ for wider DOF? I would also like a shot where the sun is on the other side and...
Click to read more »you look at the histogram it's perfect exposure now. Also shot at f/8 it has good DOF w/o compromising the background (a in focus background is very distracting)...
Click to read more »the eye first, and that doesn't look quite in focus), but DOF also seems shallow despite using F/11 so the lens may not be sharp enough at this zoom perhaps...
Click to read more »normal. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC) Support. Fine capture. DoF looks normal for this sort of photo. I can see what looks like a little bit...
Click to read more »Reason Very shallow DOF, size is also small once the blur is cropped and no longer used in any articles. Previous nomination/s Image:Large brown mantid...
Click to read more »irritates me - Adrian Pingstone 15:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Oppose. Too-shallow DoF and incomplete subject. In addition (and this is NOT why I voted Oppose,...
Click to read more »is a bit noisy due to ISO 800, and was taken handheld at f/2.8 (hence the very shallow DOF) but I would like geenral feedback. I believe the technical...
Click to read more »Self-Nominate and support. - y6y6y6 22:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Comment more DOF and less compression artifacts would be nice. --Dschwen 22:36, 30 March 2006...
Click to read more »strong advocate for the F-111, had little understanding of just how capable the aircraft actually were and didn't really know what to do with them when they...
Click to read more »Definitely there now. Promise :) 22:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC) Support. Thanks. The DoF is a little shallow (the far legs are out-of-focus), but it's still very...
Click to read more »Weak support. It's nice, but not great. As Nauticashades mentioned, the DOF is a bit too narrow. I would like it to be higher resolution, I concede that...
Click to read more »someone wants to make a real encyclopedia article for Form 20-F later, I'm sure that they'll do better than this. --Ardonik 04:47, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC) Delete...
Click to read more »The third reason has to do with depth of field. It's my understanding that if you keep the field of view constant, the DoF is constant, but the distribution...
Click to read more »Angelono2008 (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Support I'm not that picky about DoF. The picture is clear and shows the mosquito in good light, this isn't an...
Click to read more »and DoF (due to diffraction softening). f/11 (the aperture setting that was used) is right in the sweet spot for an SLR sensor. If you pushed it to f/16...
Click to read more »--Euclidthegreek (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC) It's now in the DoF, so it may as well be at WP:ZORK. Quickest Delete Possible - This is not...
Click to read more »way. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Oppose inadequate DOF. Mfield (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Why? The point of this shot isn't...
Click to read more »WP:DOF This a KIS Label to indicate that you are a participant in the Department of Fun....
Click to read more »contributions and especially my Recent Changes patrol. I contribute to the DoF for I believe it will make Wikipedia a more appealing place to be in, thus...
Click to read more »tentacle structure in the middle(?). I hate to say it, but a slightly shallower DOF would hint a sense of perspective... --Dschwen(A) 12:56, 22 January 2007...
Click to read more »DOF really works for this image as it's been arranged - illustrating the three facets of the IC you'd really want them all in focus, not have the DOF...
Click to read more »(UTC) Neutral agree with the shallow DOF, but with looking at the meta data it seems not easy to reach a better DOF, so a neutral vote. --kaʁstn 22:10,...
Click to read more »Blurry at full resolution; I think we can do better. --Tewy 01:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Oppose Shallow DOF, Poor angle, Unatural background, distracting...
Click to read more »far side of the grill be outside of the DOF is one thing; having the tail-end of the emblem outside of the DOF is a flaw. Also, I see the camera was an...
Click to read more »difficult photo to take, it seems a great deal is hidden in the shadows, and the DoF is a bit shallow.--Godot13 (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC) Not Promoted...
Click to read more »20 November 2009 (UTC) Oppose Very eye-catching at thumbnail but shallow DOF. --Muhammad(talk) 15:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC) As they hang around the tree...
Click to read more »than others of this varietal, good choice for FA. I don't mind the shallow dof; the focus is in the right place. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2020...
Click to read more »background is distracting. --Pharaoh Hound 17:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Oppose. DOF is too shallow. Focus in extreme foreground is misplaced, IMO. --Dante Alighieri...
Click to read more »December 2007 (UTC) Neutral Natural setting and good detail in places, but DOF is an issue (it always is) and there's flash reflection causing slightly...
Click to read more »Oppose. Lovely shot, but unfortunately misplaced focal point and shallow DoF make it problematic. Would support a "better" version of this shot on incandescence...
Click to read more »way up high in the ISO then to get a short enough time with a reasonable DoF since things in water move constantly. --cart-Talk 14:47, 28 September 2019...
Click to read more »branch and the bits of the fungus/lichen itself that are on the edge of the DoF. Either way it is distracting. At F8 on a Casio EX-Z1080 I am not sure whether...
Click to read more »(talk) 12:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Comment I haven't viewed full size yet but DOF seems really small. What was the size of the flowers? --Muhammad(talk) 13:08...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Shortcut WP:UBX/PROGRAMMINGWP:UBX/PROGRAMMING...
Click to read more »Support as nominator liquidGhoul (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Oppose DOF is too small, bad lightning, seems to be “over-flashed” (see the eye of the...
Click to read more »listener's perspective you do sound ridiculous (for the reasons elaborated). Do you have an idea of what BotF is? If you do, do you suppose you've demonstrated...
Click to read more »17 April 2013 (UTC) Comment Can't expect more DOF from a single frame picture with a Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro lens, if my assumption on the lens...
Click to read more »better shot just for your own sake, I would try this again with a deeper DOF (try f/16) and an ND filter. Mount the camera on the tripod and use the timer...
Click to read more »Noodle snacks (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Neutral - insufficient DOF and JPEG artifacts with the eye a little blocky. Not an oppose, but can't...
Click to read more »took the photo was at f/2.8. You have no hope in hell of ensuring that everything is going to be in focus at such a narrow DOF (right from the front railings...
Click to read more »Shortcut WP:A+FWP:A+F Art+Feminism is a do-it-with-others campaign to improve coverage on feminism, gender and the arts on Wikipedia. In a 2011 survey...
Click to read more »recipients (A–F) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Featured list candidates/List of Victoria Cross recipients (A–F)/archive1...
Click to read more »background messy and distracting. Reducing DOF might have helped. --Dschwen 16:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC) It's already F/5; there's not much further to go while...
Click to read more »focuses on a single soldier who afawk is not notable (minor point), (b) DOF is so shallow as to make location unrecognisable, therefore (c) greatest...
Click to read more »distinctions... Above tasks could be added to above "To-do" info box. John F. Bolt Andrew Sledd Paul Tibbets List of international goals scored by Abby...
Click to read more »10:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC) Support - DOF is fine for identification purposes, though I agree that a bit smaller F number could have been useful. — Crisco...
Click to read more »people on the list of composers by name, having last names beginning with "F–G". In music, an "arrangement" is a musical reconceptualization of a previously...
Click to read more »(UTC) Weak oppose For a single plane image, I would expect the DOF to be greater. No way f/4 can be used for macro without stacking.--Muhammad(talk) 17:31...
Click to read more »← Newsroom WP:POST/F Formatting...
Click to read more »9 May 2011 (UTC) Comments I wouldn't mind it's not 100% sharp. But the DOF is to shallow in this case. The only thing that is sharp enough is top spot...
Click to read more »Oppose – Shallow DOF. Sca (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Thanks, Sca. For the laypeople here, could you please give a definition of DOF so we know what...
Click to read more »space on the right side) and it would have been nicer to get a bit more DOF as there's no need to blur the background on a photo like this, but otherwise...
Click to read more »--Tomer T (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Support. Quality is decent, DOF comes out a bit narrow despite a fairly large aperture being used, but focus...
Click to read more »due to physical limitations this is as good as is possible in terms of DOF (20mm just isn't going to happen). There's no way (apart from focus stacking...
Click to read more »Reason High quality in a natural environment. Good DOF considering the 1:1.4 mag or so. Only was 5-6 cm from the bug (don't get much working distance...
Click to read more »complaints about size and DOF. --jjron 08:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Neutral, i'm not going to complain about the size or DOF, but i dislike the composition...
Click to read more »an exceptionally small insect (10mm), and the photo was taken at f/13 to maximise DOF w/o losing sharpness. A fully in focus image would be nigh impossible...
Click to read more »DOF) because you wouldn't capture interesting detail/features of the moth. the only way would be a top down (which wouldn't show face and legs) or do...
Click to read more »slightly lacking, but I find something striking about it, I think the use of DOF and colour contrast. Given the metadata's gone, any info on the camera equipment...
Click to read more »background texture and color clash with hair, noisy, cropped head, poor DOF. Really not FP worthy. Articles this image appears in Robin Hunicke Previous...
Click to read more »aperture and still get good DOF. For smaller insects, you have to move as close as possible, use a small aperture to get a good DOF resulting in lack of sharpness...
Click to read more »choose one of the stubs below according to your area of expertise/interest and start editing! Top 0–9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z...
Click to read more »7 July 2007 (UTC) Weak Oppose The DOF is the problem. --Mad Max 08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Shot at f/11 - max DOF w/o loss of sharpness/detail due to...
Click to read more »Robertson (via Flickr), and licensed CC-BY-SA. Macro usually means shallow DOF, but the focal point is right on the spider's head, so most of the important...
Click to read more »snacks (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Support good quality and EV. Nice DOF --Muhammad(talk) 14:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Support Not quite the best contrast...
Click to read more »Reason Good lighting, decent DOF, very high res, sharp, good EV, and really pretty :) Articles this image appears in Polemonium reptans Creator Kaldari...
Click to read more »comments on the structure of the list and what do, if anything, with those one-time appearance (Maximum Velocity / F-Zero AX) characters. Relisted peer review...
Click to read more »the most feared insects. Good quality and EV. For such a small subject, DOF is also quite good. Articles this image appears in Mimicry, Tettigoniidae...
Click to read more »[[Category:births]] [[Category:deaths]] [[Category:Australian people]] A-F (warning, very large file) G-M (warning, very large file) N-Z (warning, very...
Click to read more »are fine Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose The DOF is much too big, so the background is very distracting. Additionally at full...
Click to read more »and later confirmed in the Diario Oficial (I do not have the current date of the publication of the DOF but will look into it). The Government of Puebla...
Click to read more »I am not a huge fan of the DOF. The photograph also seems almost unreal, as if it had been overprocessed. I also really do not see much detail in the...
Click to read more »edge makes the difference between FP and non FP material. Shallow DOF has nothing to do with shutter speed (except for the fact that contrary to what you...
Click to read more »Welcome to the WikiProject NASCAR to-do list! This is an informational list of articles related to NASCAR that need to be consistently updated, articles...
Click to read more »Oppose agree with J Milburn about shallow DOF. Pinetalk 08:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Oppose due to shallow DOF. Daniel Case (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2011...
Click to read more »October 2006 (UTC) Comment - With respect, I don't entirely agree that the DOF in this case diminishes the encyclopaedic nature of the image. Every prominent...
Click to read more »September 2009 (UTC) Oppose - Per shallow DoF. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 05:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC) What difference does it make in the articles? It is already...
Click to read more »Reason High quality image, excellent DOF and sharpness (7 frame focus stack) Articles this image appears in Flower chafer, Polyphaga Creator Fir0002 Support...
Click to read more »02:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Oppose - Glass effects mentioned, and poor DOF. --Sean 02:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC) (Today's lesson in photography...)...
Click to read more »is good but DOF is quite shallow, slight motion blur in the legs and plumage seems noisy. --Muhammad(talk) 05:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC) What do you mean by...
Click to read more »which would actually seem to speak against its EV. Additionally I think the DOF is far too shallow for this particular subject. The blown sky doesn't really...
Click to read more »8 August 2006 (UTC) Subject: I think this an excellent photograph (size, DOF, etc.) that illustrates the markings on a tiger's face. Support Votes: Nice...
Click to read more »01:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Weak oppose - Blurry, and there are issues with DOF. — neuro(talk)(review) 04:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Regretful Oppose - I like...
Click to read more »wouldn't always be able to draw a line (two DoF) through two points (four numbers), or a circle (three DoF) through three points (six numbers). "same shape"...
Click to read more »April 2007 (UTC)penubag Oppose. No, not "great focus" - there is a clear DOF problem here. --Janke | Talk 13:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Oppose—As Witty lama...
Click to read more »the focus isn't quite spot on - difficult, for sure, with such a shallow DOF. --Janke | Talk 19:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Please note that this a much...
Click to read more »Comment I probably lowered the f-number too much, causing the DOF to be too shallow. I had intended it to have a rather shallow DOF so that the hexagonal aperture...
Click to read more »Reason Good quality, DOF and EV. Articles in which this image appears Orthetrum trinacria Creator Muhammad Mahdi Karim, edited by Jjron Support as nominator...
Click to read more »User:Radicalsubversiv regarding User:Chuck F. Evidence has been compiled at User:Radicalsubversiv/Chuck F. Chuck F, also known by countless anonymous IPs...
Click to read more »details and lighting. Muhammad(talk) 21:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Support DOF could have been more perfect, but the characteristic feature is very well...
Click to read more »Nick-D F-111 & EF-111 Units in Combat is 96-page summary of the operational history of all the variants of the Cold War-era General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark...
Click to read more »impressive shot through the binoculars with good detail on the subject. DoF is better than most shots of this kind, keeping the binocular eye cup acceptably...
Click to read more »is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. GabrielF (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log ·...
Click to read more »areas of the snake, that shadow in the top corner is a bit unfortunate, DOF does seem a bit shallow, and I'm not really a fan of that background, it looks...
Click to read more »oppose. Well composed. Alas, It's a bit blurrier than I would like, and the DOF is too narrow. THE MOON IS MADE OF CHEESE! --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:34,...
Click to read more »(depending on the image - slightly cutoff, clashes with background, minor DOF issues). A real issue with 6 would be size - it only just scrapes into the...
Click to read more »Juliancolton | Talk 05:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Oppose per the blob. The DoF is about 6cm and seems to have just caught her arm and chin but not her eyes...
Click to read more »and support. - PER9000 15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Comments: Beautiful, but DOF is just too shallow. Quite a nice shot, though. J Are you green? 21:33, 30...
Click to read more »nominator – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC) Support – The DOF is a little tight (the back foot is out-of-focus), but that doesn't spoil...
Click to read more »although recognising its high technical value - very sharp, good resolution, DoF perhaps a bit more suitable to an encyclopaedic use, but it works well particularly...
Click to read more »the DOF so I can understand why you think this. There are still pages like mine here and some have been here way longer than mine. Also the DOF have...
Click to read more »fighters - e.g. a F-22 with F-35 avionics - [1][2]) and starting a domestic (probably at Mitsubishi, and probably F-3 considering F-1 and F-2, but maybe they...
Click to read more »but the bird is great--CPacker (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Support DoF properly puts subject matter in context. Information (context) should take...
Click to read more »08:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Weak oppose Regretfully, IMHO the narrow DOF is just too much of a problem. Such a small part of the whole image is actually...
Click to read more »January 2008 (UTC) F-flat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) An obscure musical note. Does it deserve a...
Click to read more »Turner (Talk) 22:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Weak support once again, the DOF alone of macro photography is not enough for me to oppose (especially for...
Click to read more »Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Support. Somewhat narrow DOF, but otherwise excellent. --jjron (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Support...
Click to read more »Shallow DOF, resulting from a poor exposure solution, crop too tight. - Alvesgaspar 15:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Oppose' I would agree that the DOF may be...
Click to read more »Rybinsk tank • Kaktus (currently a redirect) 10.5 cm leFH18/3 (Sf) auf G.W. B-2(f) (currently a redirect)[sFH13/1 (Sf) LrS](currently a redirect) Expansion...
Click to read more »Shortcuts WP:TM/FORMATWP:TM/FORMAT WP:TM/FWP:TM/F Note: This page contains details of templates relating to formatting. Templates related to descriptions...
Click to read more »should be made to this page. The result was redirect to Maximilian Büsser#MB&F (2005 - present). Missvain (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC) [Hide this...
Click to read more »Image of F-22 Raptor. The front F-22 is well focused while the column formation provides the wow factor.) Articles this image appears in F-22 Raptor...
Click to read more »(UTC) Oppose - I still don't see why you need F/16. At that distance, F/8 should provide plenty of DOF, with less diffraction and a faster shutter speed...
Click to read more »2015 (UTC) Support -Jobas (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose – Haloing, DOF, tight crop. Would love to see a shot like the previous nom with all details...
Click to read more »nominator --Fir0002 12:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Oppose Support Poor exposure and DOF, slight skew to green with regards to WB Capital photographer (talk) 07:13...
Click to read more »it full sized, very little is in clear focus. Usually I'm sympathetic to DOF issues in macro photography but I can't help thinking it could have been...
Click to read more »colorful --Luc Viatour (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Support per nom. Good DoF, great resolution, has wow. DurovaCharge! 18:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Support...
Click to read more »capability of the F-111B. The inclusion of the F-14 clearly means that the paper classifies the F-14 as an air superiority fighter, as does every hit on a...
Click to read more »portrayed), poor angle, DOF, blown highlights. --Tewy 03:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Oppose per all above, but mostly the poor DOF. This shot should not...
Click to read more »about me. 05:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Oppose - Good resolution, but shallow DoF. No matter how many mosquitos are or are not featured. - ☩Damërung ☩. --...
Click to read more »Reason Good Ev, failed at FPC die to DOF limitations. Articles this image appears in Butterfly, Hypolimnas misippus Creator Muhammad Time Requirement...
Click to read more »considered for deletion. Immunize (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Well, the DOF page isn't going to be deleted, so if you have specific problems with specific...
Click to read more »per Crassic, DOF is much too narrow; nearly nothing in focus. —αἰτίας •discussion• 11:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Weak support. Angle and DOF are acceptable...
Click to read more »Please do NOT add requests to this page, add them to the appropriate area in the box below. Requests for new Company articles: 0-9 A B C D E F G H I J...
Click to read more »August 2009 (UTC) Weak Oppose it's not entirely in focus. Looks like your DOF is too shallow. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC) It is easy...
Click to read more »of my last work with my old Panasonic FZ28; so had its limitations. More DOF will end up in more busy background without a flash which I don't have. We...
Click to read more »Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 F-14 Tomcat/Spangenberg Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit...
Click to read more »(talk) 05:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Support. Quality shot. Focus is spot on. DOF shallow but good isolation of the subject. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:11, 28 November...
Click to read more »are themselves called "Fast #" or "Furious #" or "F&F#" or "F#", what's up with this rejection? Do you not watch any of these films in this multi-billion...
Click to read more »fact tags as was done with F-84 is by far the best way to give feedback on what exactly needs a citation. As I said in my F-84 comments, having done most...
Click to read more »(UTC) Oppose There's zero detail other than on the vascular tissue, and the DOF problems cause too many problems with that detail. SingCal 03:33, 29 April...
Click to read more »2009 (UTC) Oppose DOF compares unfavourably to this congener. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC) That "congener" does not have the head...
Click to read more »enc, sharp where it needs to be. The technical problems (grain, shallow DOF) could be minimized by some downsampling - it's now over 3500 px. PS: I'd...
Click to read more »and support. - Harborsparrow 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Oppose. Shallow DOF means that all of the main leaf is not in focus. And that one sideways leaf...
Click to read more »sold that this image is up to our standards for insect and arachnids. The DOF is shallow and the resolution is limited. The other FP on the jumping spider...
Click to read more »sublist split from the "F" sublist; rather, it is the "E" list split from the original list, and viewed in that sense, it truly does not violate 3b, because...
Click to read more »NEED TO DO THIS IN AN ARTICLE? iT JUST LOOKS LIKE YOU FORGOT TO TURN OFF CAPS LOCK> sERIOUSLY< WHY? iF YOU DID FORGET TO TURN OFF THE CAPS LOCK, DO IT NOW...
Click to read more »preferences in order e.g. "A, B, C, D, E, F") To do this you may use the template * {{stv-ballot|A=0|B=0|C=0|D=0|E=0|F=0|sign=~~~~}} — Select it from the asterisk...
Click to read more »further edits should be made to this page. The result was merge to USS Harry F. Bauer. Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC) [Hide this box] New...
Click to read more »probably resulting from light reflections off the white background. Shallow DOF. - Alvesgaspar 15:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Oppose for two reasons, the former...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »distinctive facade of the Palácio do Planalto behind him. On the other hand, since the DOF is so shallow, it doesn't do so particularly well. Chick Bowen...
Click to read more »history | links | watch | logs) (diff !top) - Link: goldensufi.org/book_trans_DoF.html (R/Xmeta/L- still there) 2011-09-07 19:17:09 (UTC): User Aoneness t •...
Click to read more »compact, so the scope for remedy is very limited. DOF is not the major problem per se, but a shallower DOF could have helped the compression maintain the...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »candidates are successful.] [Updated: James F. (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)] Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects...
Click to read more »Pollinator Nominator Hex Support — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Oppose DOF is tiny. there's some glare on the eye and the subject is cut off. -Fcb981...
Click to read more »opinion, higher DOF wouldn't really help this image, as it would simply show more of the very same thing we see here. Raising the DOF would also decrease...
Click to read more »composition, apparent sharpness (motion blur? shot without stabiliser?), DOF; lighting is not the greatest worry here. I also think that such a large...
Click to read more »Reason Good sharpness, lighting, DOF and EV, appearing in two articles as the lead image. The size is a bit smaller than what I usually upload because...
Click to read more »term, do not use the phrase "if and only if". For example, instead of A function f is even if and only if f(−x) = f(x) for all x write A function f is even...
Click to read more »and, as a bonus, creates an audit trail for this project. F- and G-Functions ( wp g b ) F- and g-Series ( wp g b ) Facility area map level ( wp g b )...
Click to read more »C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z User interests: A B C D E F G H I ...
Click to read more »is hitting the web) and going for a lower DOF so you blur the background as Fir has done (yours is shot at f/7.1 which puts the background too much in...
Click to read more »February 2012 (UTC) Question I'm a bit intrigued, how do you get such beautiful DOF at an aperture of f/6.3? More relevant to the nomination, I think the...
Click to read more »background (especially top right) and very shallow DOF. ZooFari 06:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Just asking: What is DOF? - Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_ . -- 13:44, 22 June...
Click to read more »is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. ManiF (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log ·...
Click to read more »Background is too messy and distracting for me. Played around with the DOF a bit but still didn't look good. - JPM | 21:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Oppose...
Click to read more »Shallow DOF. Sca (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Oppose - significant JPEG artifacts and chromatic aberration in addition to the shallow DOF pointed...
Click to read more »contributions) 22:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Oh come on - shot at f/20 and still complaints on the DOF? Please have a bit of consideration of the technical limitations...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »this image as it is taken from a good angle with nice lighting and decent DOF giving it a high enc value. The alternative IMO is probably more on the artistic...
Click to read more »Weak oppose - It has high EV, but the photograph itself (composition, pose, DOF) isn't very compelling to me. I realize that the art of portraiture hadn't...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »07:31, 13 August 2026 (UTC) That the range of f is the domain of g does not guarantee that the composition g°f exists. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2026...
Click to read more »diffraction effects reducing sharpness. F11 is my sweat spot for clarity vs DOF, the surface is thin anyways. Natural lighting will be nice when I get my...
Click to read more »doesn't demand userfying, either, because several people were involved and DoF pages don't have to be in userspace. All that said, there's no reason to...
Click to read more »photography, so please be nice. This photo's got an incredibly small DOF, right? Does that mean the photographer has done a good job getting most of the...
Click to read more »December 2006 (UTC) Strong Keep - Sorry, can't assume good faith here. The DoF serves a purpose at Wikipedia, albeit a tangental one, and many of it's activities...
Click to read more »Great shot of the plane, great background. Articles this image appears in F-4 Phantom II Creator Master Sergeant Michael Ammons - US Airforce Support...
Click to read more »August 2007 (UTC) Just learned that a few days ago. Do you think the sharpness is due to the DOF? --Digon3 talk 21:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC) The sharpness...
Click to read more »The Wikipedia:Department of Fun argument does not hold up for two reasons: 1) See WP:WAX and 2) the DoF does not cause disruption to the workings of this...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes humorous...
Click to read more »WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This page should at most be merged with Casio F-91W as the F-105W is just a newer variant of that model. The content of this article...
Click to read more »aircraft type. There is no rational as to why F-16 PC Based desk top trainers are more relevant compared to, say, an F/A-18 PC Desk top trainer. The article cannot...
Click to read more »down into the tank (good lighting) combining apertures in the f/8 - f/11 range (good DOF) with zone focusing techniques (limited focus error). This all...
Click to read more »Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Reason Sharp, beautiful, educational, high resolution. DoF is shallow enough for a nice background, but most of the flower is still...
Click to read more »Guide to deletion (glossary) Help, my article got nominated for deletion! M/F (journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs |...
Click to read more »Forest Service, 423 F.3d 215, 218 n.5 (3d Cir. 2005); N'Diom v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 494, 496 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Krueger, 415 F.3d 766, 769 (7th...
Click to read more »blurriness. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC) As I mentioned above, that's unlikely due to technical limitations in DOF for macro photography...
Click to read more »--Pharaoh Hound 11:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Oppose. The framing and focus/DOF are the biggest issues, I think. If you have access to another Hibiscus syriacus...
Click to read more »the Lejarazu family was bulldozed on the orders of the property owners, F&F Real Estate Ventures, with the store's inventory, including numerous large...
Click to read more »at all the main is simple, poor: low DOF, the other are minerals, not the real element sample. Missing also DOF. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:02, 3 April...
Click to read more »22:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Comments I do like the picture, enough to download and run a minor edit. Though the DOF is small, focus is good around the right...
Click to read more »Comment – The chest is a bit fuzzy, could have been better with a wider DOF (f/8), but the high resolution somewhat makes up for it though. FP criterion...
Click to read more »it. It is high resolution, sharp, well lit, and well composed. Also good DOF and composition. Some may argue that showing the whole tiger is more encyclopedic...
Click to read more »photo. That said I do have an updated version --Fir0002 14:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC) While the updated version is better, its short on DOF and IMO still under...
Click to read more »was no consensus. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 18:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC) F*INK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)...
Click to read more »Shortcuts WP:PC/FWP:PC/F WP:PCFWP:PCF...
Click to read more »18:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Support. Good detail of the head (shame about the DOF softening the body a bit) and a very 'classic' pose of the Bald Eagle. Diliff...
Click to read more »com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/09/16/MN241376.DTL&type=science www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12757 www.paulekman.com/pdfs/why_do_not_we_catch_liars...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »thing, for instance axis of rotation (2 degrees of freedom) and angle (1 DoF), so it can be represented by a unit vector of the quaternion space (if you...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »stopped, Fastily. Bassie f (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent...
Click to read more »Reason Good quality and DOF (due to focus stacking). The fly is not identified to species because nobody has enough experience to identify Tachinidae...
Click to read more »Welcome to the R • R • T • F Project Page!...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »Perhaps a bit too bright and plumage detail is quite soft, but overall nice DOF and clarity Capital photographer (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Weak support...
Click to read more »the image does not represent either aircraft too well, and only marginally better at showing both. The F-14's tail covering part of the F-4 is not ideal...
Click to read more »counts.--ragesoss (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Oppose both Sorry, but DOF is too narrow. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Weak support...
Click to read more »discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Draft:Caine F. Crosby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This reads like a personal...
Click to read more »think calling it a 'difficult DOF shot' does show your limited photographical knowledge - with that sort of angle of view, DOF isn't likely to be much of...
Click to read more »(8x) which explains the shallow DOF. I did the best I could, but I was working with only about 1/3 of an inch of DOF. Besides, the blurred background...
Click to read more »23:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC) My question us this: Why does this keep happening? How many time does the W?F have to try shoving something down our throats only...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes Userbox...
Click to read more »These should work on pages whose title does not begin with "Category:". {{Compact ToC}} Contents A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z...
Click to read more »the wiki we can make time Open and reverting 'cause I'm in my prime See DOF if ya want to entertain ya 'cause I'm down to the fate of Wikimania I try...
Click to read more »preferences in order e.g. "A, B, C, D, E, F, G") To do this you may use the template * {{stv-ballot|A=0|B=0|C=0|D=0|E=0|F=0|G=0|~~~~}} — Select it from the asterisk...
Click to read more »based on DOF, lack of sharpness of body, and cut off legs. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-07-14 18:45Z Thanks for the comment. But I don't think DOF should be a...
Click to read more »F-5 · F-101 Voodoo · F-102 Delta Dagger · F-104 Starfighter · F-105 Thunderchief · F-117 Nighthawk · F-14 Tomcat · F-15 Eagle · F-15E Strike Eagle · F-16...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »entirely as an OR essay, to the extent that it does not seem possible to even extract a definition of "Subpart F" from it. If someone knowledgeable about the...
Click to read more »min{cf(u, v) | (u, v) in p} for each edge (u, v) in p do f(u, v) ← f(u, v) + cf(p) f(v, u) ← −f(u, v) return f Make sure the algorithm is understandable without...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »delete. If there is no Wiktionary entry ... add one. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC) C & F Agent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links |...
Click to read more »sure at such small size), but if that's the case, it really is a shallow DOF. --jjron (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Delist. We have far better...
Click to read more »deletion (glossary) Help, my article got nominated for deletion! Candice F. Ransom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs |...
Click to read more »insect is great, almost none of the wings are in focus. If this was merely a DOF issue, then it might have a chance at FPC (you would have some supporters)...
Click to read more »(UTC) Support as author. Though not absolutely crisp, I think focus and DOF are sufficient for an FP, taking into account the difficulties of taking...
Click to read more »above. J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Another fly FPC?! Low DOF. --Dschwen 22:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Something as common as a housefly...
Click to read more »tend to agree with Janke that the indistinct background (due to shallow DOF) could be cropped somewhat on the right and maybe even a bit on the left...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Shortcut WP:UBX/FILM/GWP:UBX/FILM/G...
Click to read more »F-14 Tomcat · F-15 Eagle · F-15E Strike Eagle · F-16 Fighting Falcon · F/A-18E/F Super Hornet · F-22 Raptor · F-35 Lightning II · F-4 Phantom II · F-8...
Click to read more »of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 18:27, July 25, 2005 (UTC)===Scott F. Smith=== Delete. Hoax? Vanity? No relevant google hits. No google hits for...
Click to read more »Guide to deletion (glossary) Help, my article got nominated for deletion! Nk.F (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)...
Click to read more »15:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC) AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/F&D F&D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)...
Click to read more »JSTOR · TWL) Recreation of "F/A-18 Hornet Solo Display" that was deleted after this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F/A-18 Hornet Solo Display Also...
Click to read more »noms are taken in pretty tough lighting conditions, so while a little more DOF would be nice, there's probably only so much we can expect and there's good...
Click to read more »Wikispace for more transparency. Maybe they could do this as promised? page move discussion - F.A.A.F.A. 21:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC) You can see by Striver's...
Click to read more »2012 at 08:55:05 (UTC) Reason This is a good quality portrait of Charles F. Bolden, Jr., who is the present administrator of NASA. He is a retired United...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »would obviously have some impact on perceived sharpness. There might be more DOF issues at original 100% res. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:04, 17 May 2007...
Click to read more »18:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Support - Though I may not be crazy about the DOF here, this is a striking image (the contrast of her small body and the flag)...
Click to read more »Reason Good quality, EV, DOF and aesthetics. Articles this image appears in Chrysanthemum Creator Muhammad Mahdi Karim Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk)...
Click to read more »2007 (UTC) Oppose. Simply ugly and uninteresting, no defined subject and a DOF that doesn't know whether it is coming or going. --Vaelta 21:58, 30 April...
Click to read more »Guide to deletion (glossary) Help, my article got nominated for deletion! J. F. Roux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Shortcut WP:UBX/TOOLSWP:UBX/TOOLS...
Click to read more »Paul F Savage was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments...
Click to read more » The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC) David F. Haight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs |...
Click to read more »for Japan has grown to be 23 pages long: Alphabetical index: 0–9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z But if you want to see at a glance...
Click to read more »2007 (UTC) in hindsight I should have stoped down to f/8, I had plenty of light, still the DOF is a bit better than the rose that was just delisted and...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Shortcut WP:UBX/HISTORYWP:UBX/HISTORY...
Click to read more »F G D was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments...
Click to read more »20:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Personally I think it's a very nice image, perfect DOF and nice sharpness. I would support it if there was a less compressed version...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »has DOF/focus issues dispite being a slightly better composition. The alterative is a little sharper. Diliff | (Talk) Support Alternative Better DOF, and...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »GassyGuy 06:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Delete per nom. Artw 06:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC) F per nom Jammo (SM247) 06:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Delete per itsJamie. Rather...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »by Scorpion0422 22:19, 4 April 2009 [1]. Nominator(s): WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) Featured list candidates/List of TNA X Division...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Shortcut WP:UBX/HEALTHWP:UBX/HEALTH...
Click to read more »Guide to deletion (glossary) Help, my article got nominated for deletion! F-7, Islamabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs |...
Click to read more »votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2010 at 03:25:26 (UTC) Reason It shows a F-16 for the Solo Display Team in flight beacuse Solo Display Team is famous...
Click to read more »with a wider aperture to get the DOF? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ The flower is seasonal and won't bloom for another year, I will do as you suggested though. -- penubag ...
Click to read more »Durova412 22:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Oppose. DOF is pretty low and even the parts that are in focus do not show a whole lot of detail. --Dschwen 15:55...
Click to read more »(Talk) 11:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Keep F/A-18C Mock-up in my opinion is an interesting object and I ask not do delete. -- Spurzem (talk) 09:50, 11 February...
Click to read more »January 2013 [1]. John F. Bolt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Featured article candidates/John F. Bolt/archive1 Featured...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »this page. The result was delete. joe deckertalk 01:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC) F A Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs |...
Click to read more »would be looking to shoot a landscape such as this at at least f8, both for DOF and for lens sharpness. I would hesitate to go past 11 with a crop sensor...
Click to read more »and looking head on near ground level. I know this angle is ideal from a DOF perspective, but it is much harder to get a feel for what it looks like in...
Click to read more »(UTC) Support - it's hard to get that DOF w/o any motion blur in a sports shot. I still haven't managed to do it... Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:59, 2 September...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes miscellaneous...
Click to read more »Douglas F/A-18 Hornet#Switzerland. With a selective merge. Sandstein 19:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC) AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/F/A-18C...
Click to read more »you cared to inspect the picture he has linked to, you would see that the DOF for a very similar subject has been handled in a different, and clearly to...
Click to read more »for discussion. No vote. WCFrancis 01:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC) Comment John F. Long seems worthy of an article. Johntex 01:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC) Scratch...
Click to read more »strings being blow is a bit silly, but the rest is spot on. A shallower DOF would be preferable. --Gmaxwell 00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Comment gees, they're...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes Userbox...
Click to read more »Course name Technical Editing Institution Stephen F Austin State Univeristy Instructor Megancondis Wikipedia Expert Ian (Wiki Ed) Subject English Course...
Click to read more »Dow Rolv Enge Frank S. Farley Stuart F. Feldman John Floyd (Virginia politician) Frank Ford (broadcaster) Vernon F. Gallagher Kate Gallego Gerald Garson...
Click to read more »presumably to compensate for lack of sharpness there caused by inadequate DOF, look how sharp the items on the railing are compared to everything else...
Click to read more »August 2012 [1]. John F. Bolt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Featured article candidates/John F. Bolt/archive1 Featured...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes animated...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »citing only one source for the F-91W of which a separate page exists. I see no reason to keep this. It looks like a registry of F series watches which Wikipedia...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »be displayed. Even on subpages. All you need to do is put {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Userboxes/KoF}} on one of your pages. Copy and paste to your...
Click to read more »2009 (UTC) F violin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log) No sources cited, and does not appear...
Click to read more »Looks slightly back-focussed - could probably have done with a greater DOF. Also a little tight at the left, as noted above, but overall I think it...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »verifiable alright. ~ trialsanderrors 04:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Four f's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Shortcuts WP:UBX/COLORWP:UBX/COLOR...
Click to read more »Spain F-111 Bonifaz (es:Bonifaz (F-111)) F-112 Roger de Lauria (es:Roger de Lauria (F-112)) F-113 Menéndez de Avilés (es:Menéndez de Avilés (F-113)) F-114...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Shortcut WP:UBX/POLICYWP:UBX/POLICY...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »(talk) 02:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Support - the artifacts and shallow DoF are very much in keeping with a daguerrotype of this era. Despite these flaws...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Shortcut WP:UBX/MATHWP:UBX/MATH...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Shortcut WP:UBX/DRINKWP:UBX/DRINK...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Shortcut WP:UBX/UBXWP:UBX/UBX...
Click to read more »Pengo pointed out it is quite unusual to find a shot like this which has a DOF from wing tip to wing tip. And there's a very good reason for it in this...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Shortcut WP:UBX/TIMEWP:UBX/TIME...
Click to read more »Article status. As soon as all tasks on the to-do list are completed or deemed sufficiently addressed AoF should be moved to another article. The current...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »mind/sandbox/F-X (Japan) is also in the picture. People would not copy-paste like this, it is a hazard for copyright compliance. Deletion does not fix the...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »of personal attacks from F&f but I'm not going to be intimidated. MintCond (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC) That's what he does. If you disagree with him...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Shortcuts WP:UBX/COMPWP:UBX/COMP...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Shortcut WP:UBX/ZODIACWP:UBX/ZODIAC...
Click to read more »Reason Beautiful picture, good EV, good DOF, great composition. Sadly, the original was heavily compressed. It also suffered from being noisy and over-sharpened...
Click to read more »further edits should be made to this page. The result was redirect to John F. Kennedy University#School of Medicine. Sandstein 20:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »At the core, there is a content dispute over the history of the F-14. This continued for about a day before another editor who was called in on an informal...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Shortcut WP:UBX/VANDWP:UBX/VAND...
Click to read more »fF]|[bB][mM][pP]|[gG][iI][fF]|House|[jJ][pP][eE]?[gG]|[pP][nN][gG]|[sS][vV][gG]|[tT][iI][fF][fF]?|[xX][cC][fF])|\.?[^\.\[\]\{\}\|\r\n]*\...
Click to read more »C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z User interests: A B C D E F G H I ...
Click to read more »as nominator -- Labrat256 02:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Oppose - insufficient DOF, artifacted. MER-C 04:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Comment - Wow that's weird....
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Shortcut WP:UBX/EMOTICONSWP:UBX/EMOTICONS...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Shortcut WP:UBX/FOREIGNWP:UBX/FOREIGN...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »Articles for deletion/2007 Hukou F-5F crash Articles for deletion/2007 Hukou F-5F crash (2nd nomination) 2007 Hukou F-5F crash (edit | talk | history |...
Click to read more »F-ray was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments...
Click to read more »another thing I'd like to know is how do you people find this page? Why would you even click on the F-5 tornado link? Do you simply go around looking for imperfections...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Shortcut WP:UBX/COMICSWP:UBX/COMICS...
Click to read more »given their age, should be out of copyright. This has an extremely narrow DOF with a lot of blurriness even at this size (consider his hair). Shadows and...
Click to read more »IPs, exactly as he is doing now. This time, he has committed the additional deceit of posting the article about himself at Arthur F. Carmazzi, rather than...
Click to read more »is simply a directory of museums (and displays) of static displayed F-4's and the F-4's on display. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Note:...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Shortcuts WP:UBX/SPACEWP:UBX/SPACE...
Click to read more »January 2011 (UTC) AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/James F. Allen James F. Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch |...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes Userbox...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »Shortcut WP:A+FWP:A+F Read and download our Quick Guide for Editing on Wikipedia, where you'll learn the basics for making your first successful contributions...
Click to read more »Please do not modify it. final (39/1/0) ending 19:49 24 December 2005 (UTC) FayssalF (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate FayssalF (also known...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »Shortcut WP:A+FWP:A+F Since 2014, over 10,000 people at more than 800 events around the world have participated in Art+Feminism’s Edit-a-thons, resulting...
Click to read more »(UTC) AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/L&F (production duo) Articles for deletion/L&F (production duo) (2nd nomination) [Hide this box] New...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Shortcut WP:UBX/INTERWIKIWP:UBX/INTERWIKI...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »was delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC) F-mail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)...
Click to read more »C are redirects to A, D and E link to B and F links to C. Also, E's pageID is larger than D's, while F's is smaller than D's. If bllimit is set in such...
Click to read more »deletion/William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration Articles for deletion/William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration (2nd nomination) William F. Harrah...
Click to read more »redirect to List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients: A–F#A. SNGs do not trump GNG. Every Wikipedia article needs to pass GNG. SNGs are simply...
Click to read more »hi, both F and G are i by j matrix,where i=3 ,j=3 Cij={ (f(x,y),g(x,y))/f(x,y)=i,g(x,y)=j} what is the meaning of this expression I don't know where this...
Click to read more »shots were quite difficult: a small aperture was necessary to have adequate DOF and there was some wind. With an old 100 mm Tokina macro (with no VR) I think...
Click to read more »history | links | watch | logs) (diff !top) - Link: goldensufi.org/book_trans_DoF.html (R/Xmeta/L- still there) 2011-09-07 19:17:09 (UTC): User Aoneness t •...
Click to read more »rewrite to be anything else (G11) Guy (Help!) 15:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC) A&F Fragrances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs |...
Click to read more »The current date and time is: 19:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC). Same user: (Chuck F | talk | contributions) (203.112.19.195 | talk | contributions) (210.142.29...
Click to read more »supported by a 6–4 plurality, but 7 votes are needed for a majority. FayssalF and Thebainer have yet to comment on this issue. A remedy emphasizing the...
Click to read more »aspect of a picture. You can create a shallow DOF, though. Thegreenj 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC) What does it mean that one can't create a quality? Please...
Click to read more »Pretty simple. An F-15 Eagle. Striking/beautiful/fascinating/etc. - BRIAN0918 05:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) Nominate and support. - BRIAN0918 05:20, 25...
Click to read more »nominated for deletion! List of allied military operations of the Vietnam War (A–F) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)...
Click to read more »made to this page. The result was keep. Nakon 01:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC) L&F (production duo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch |...
Click to read more »version with the tail included, even if it is out of focus due to shallow DOF. Not the current version with the tail chopped off though. 84.9.223.82 Neutral...
Click to read more »articles edited at A+F Events that are related to the project focus. You can see the full list of 5500 items here: [1] Because Listeria does not allow for us...
Click to read more »that the blurred wings detract at all from the picture, and even though the DOF was small, Mdf did a fine job. Anyhow, here's something that the picture...
Click to read more »McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service (Nick-D) The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) operated 24 McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II fighter...
Click to read more »19:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Delete - per nom. N-n variation. Do I want to buy a duck? Do I f... no, I don't, thanks. Bubba hotep 23:16, 13 November 2006...
Click to read more »changed the DOF link to "silly things". Hopefully this is better :) Esther Clementina talk 02:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Support - That'll do. :) ~~ Hi878...
Click to read more »How do we know they are F-15 pilots? I know they are walking past some, but they could be pilots of any type of plane just had to walk past the F-15's...
Click to read more »something sharp; it's hard to get the right thing sharp--and I think the DOF is perfect. I also like how the two buds show the flower in different developmental...
Click to read more »to deletion (glossary) Help, my article got nominated for deletion! John F. Thompson Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch |...
Click to read more »deletion/James F. Williams Articles for deletion/James F. Williams (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/James F. Williams (3rd nomination) James F. Williams...
Click to read more »Contents !–9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z NOTOC !dea4u (talk · contribs) 23emr (talk · contribs) – Not Now! 3125A (talk · contribs)...
Click to read more »deletion (glossary) Help, my article got nominated for deletion! List of F-Zero characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch |...
Click to read more »06:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC) AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/F&B Inc. F&B Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs |...
Click to read more »Handbookofdiscardedideas Capnleela: improved Leroy F. Moore Jr. Miss Anthology Oruanui eruption Civic technology Creative coding Leroy F. Moore Jr. Art+Feminism's "Learn...
Click to read more »focus. This is a really close-up shot and the DOF is shallow (a few mm) despite the very small aperture (F/29). A better focus was achieved in this other...
Click to read more »January 2007 (UTC) F-Zero_Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD) The article F-Zero Party has been...
Click to read more »out. Yours obviously does not (see edits). As far as overall quality goes, the only point your image has is a slightly higher DOF. On the head mine has...
Click to read more »User interests: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This gallery includes userbox...
Click to read more »overexposed in some areas. Also Oppose for the Alt because it needs more DOF. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Not Promoted --Makeemlighter...
Click to read more »preferable as it would remove the slight overlap, but this is OK. Slightly narrow DOF, but the main stuff is in focus. --jjron (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)...
Click to read more »Help, my article got nominated for deletion! List of places in Colorado: A–F (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)...
Click to read more »Reason The flies are very small and maintaining a good DOF at this high level of maginification is very difficult. Good quality and lighting of a very...
Click to read more »Anthony (new article, F, TW) Evelyn McDonnell (new article, F, TW) Women in Latin music (new article) Holly Gleason (new article, F) New/expanded articles...
Click to read more »of F-16 Fighting Falcon operators. 4) Should we update the Specs to the Block 50/52, a more relevant model? 5) Other considerations? 6) [NEW] Do we have...
Click to read more »nominated for deletion! List of government schools in New South Wales: A–F (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)...
Click to read more »