Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Archives/Jan-Mar 2010

WP:PPRA

Please cut and paste nominations to be archived from the Picture peer review mainpage to the top of the appropriate archive page, creating a new archive (by nomination date) when necessary.

2012: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2011: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2010: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2009: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2008: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2007: January - June | July - December
2006: January - December

Preserved tumulus in Denmark

I think it is a beautiful and EV representation of a typical Danish tumulus. The tumulus in itself is not special. I pass it often and normally it looks quite boring, but at this specific day, where it was quite cold and the sun was setting it was quite eyecatching. I would like some native speaking help for the caption, and I request a review of its suitability for FPC. I have another version File:Tinghøj Hammershøj Kvorning 2010-01-08 2.jpg with a more centered composition. Personally I find the composition in that one more boring, but perhaps from an EV POV it is preferable as less of the space is used to illustrate the smoth hilltop. I have (reluctantly) added the photo myself to Tumulus, because another editor recently added a Danish section as it seemed relevant for me there. I am wondering if it could have its place in other articles as well? --Slaunger (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: Tumulus

Creator: Slaunger

Suggested by: Slaunger (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

My first impressions are that it isn't immediately obvious that this is a Tumulus and that the image is underexposed. I wonder if the article might be ultimately served better with an image in summer without the snow (though it wouldn't look as pretty). Noodle snacks (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for taking your time to assess my photo, Noodle snacks! Well, it may be difficult to see, if you do not know anything about the background. A tumulus as this, with vegetation and small trees on it would not have existed in the middle of a field, if it had not been protected. They are somewhat a nuisance for agricultural operations as quite some resources is used to drive around them with tractors and their big tools such as plows. Moreover, crop yields from fields are lowered due to the area occupied by them. There are more than 80,000 registered tumuli in Denmark, among those one right next to this one. However, that one has been plowed over and part of the field, and it would be impossible to see that there had been a tumulus there if it had been registered late in the 19th century. So I would say it can be seen that it is tumulus becasue there is clearly a sharp interface between the smooth agricultured field and the tumulus itself with its untamed vegetation. With respect to the snow, I somewhat see your point, it is mainly an aesthetic element in this case to make it look more interesting. I see it as a plus though that there is not vegetation as grass and grown crops and so on as that would have obscured the shape of the tumulus relative to the field. Concerning exposure: Yes, it is somewhat dark, but I do not perceive it as underexposed myself as it is taken in the last few minutes before the sun set. A spring time photo would perhaps be better - before the crops have grown. there the interface between tumulus and crop is seen more clearly perhaps. --Slaunger (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Singing Ringing Tree

A good, large image of an interesting subject

Articles this image appears in: Singing Ringing Tree (Panopticons), Panopticons

Creator: Childzy ¤ Talk 15:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested by: Childzy ¤ Talk 15:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Subjectively I think you could pick a better time of day lighting wise (more wow). I'd say that it is detailed enough etc. You need to fix the tilt. The article for singing ringing tree would be better with a recording. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, The freedom of panorama laws in the UK probably need to be checked, I'm not sure of the story there (its fine here). Noodle snacks (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of a recording, i shall try it one day although the tree generally makes a noise indistinguishable from the noise of wind. Also what do the freedom of panorama laws cover? Public art, sculptures etc? and if so why is this one okay? also re; the lighting, i think it accentuates the shape of the tree as the pipes are shaded and unshaded (however i do take on board the opinion of a more experienced photographer) --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Just to confirm, public art is fair game here too.--Childzy ¤ Talk 14:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was just asking about the public art as I didn't know the story. If you can get there at sunrise or sunset (depending on the sculpture orientation) with some cloud around you would have directional light still, but it would be softer and fill in the shadows more. The colours would be less dull too. That is entirely up to you though, it doesn't really change the EV. If you can't be around at those times, then ideally you want the sun a bit more behind you. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see a stitching error at the horizon above the wind turbines. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is also one above and to the right of the left-most fence post on the lower right-hand side of the picture. Drew.magoo (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Olduvai Gorge

It is a high quality shot of an important location for our understanding of human history. I think it is good enough but would value another opinion. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: Olduvai Gorge

Creator: Noel Feans

Suggested by: Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think this should be nominated to FPC, very high encyclopedic value. Image quality is not as superb as I would have expected from the 5DII; the sky in particular looks grainy and soft. Possibly it has been overly post processed and I'm seeing jpeg artifacts. Also has a few dust spots that should be cloned out. Still a great find. Fletcher (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A pretty strong highlight reduction has been performed by the look of it. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

This vehicle was used to carry all dead and wounded soldiers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.9.156 (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Model T Ford Ambulance

**Original** - Ford Model T Field Ambulance, 1916. Canvas on wood frame model, used extensively by the British & French as well as the American Expeditionary Force in The Great War. Top speed 45mph from a 4-cylinder water-cooled engine. (copied from photo description, with some punctuation added)

Each time I see this photo I am struck by the desperation and herosim of the people who drove and rode in this vehicle. As a current EMS worker, I'm also struck by how much ambulances have changed in the almost 100 years since this ambulance was built. The contrast of the peaceful nature of the photo versus the drama surrounding the vehicle when it was in use also appeals to me.

Articles this image appears in: History of the ambulance and History of Ford Motor Company

Creator: Wyrdlight

Suggested by: Badger151 (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's a nice picture, but I'm afraid there is absolutely no way this will succeed at FPC since it fails several of the criteria. Some problems: the image is not big enough; the image is too closely cropped around the vehicle; while the subject matter is interesting, the photograph itself is not of a high technical standard or of any outstanding aesthetic quality. You might try listing it at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates (make sure you read the criteria first though), but I don't follow that page so can't advise you about your likely success. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the image and see value in it. A bit similar to this current VPC candidate, but with higher EV. I would support it as a Valued picture. Elekhh (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not too attractive, but. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 06:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Western Face of Thwaites Scars

I think its a good quality image and i like the composition (forgive the bias). My problem is that Thwaites Scars although visually interesting do not have an article --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: Yorkshire Dales

Creator: Childzy ¤ Talk 19:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested by: Childzy ¤ Talk 19:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Image quality is quite poor when viewed at 100%, but then this is 3000px high, so the lack of quality can be forgiven. The simple solution would be to downscale the image to hide the flaws, but it's probably best not to do that since downscaling is sometimes a controversial practice, since it involves removing detail from the image, and therefore forcing your own decision on other people. It's your choice. Also, I think your last upload went a bit too far in the attempt to increase contrast, and it now looks a bit unnatural to me. A fairly conservative levels adjustment to your first upload in GIMP produces a nice image. Finally: is it possible to make the picture's field of view slightly wider? Looks to me like the sides of the ridge might be cut off slightly. This is a nice picture though, so might be worth a shot at FPC. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the quality at 100%, was quite annoyed by the lack of sharpness. I'll restitch and produce a slightly wider crop with less adjustments --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, great: the picture is on Commons now, by the way. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New image uploaded, prolly wont show up here until the original wikipedia upload is deleted. Whats the point of even being able to upload at wikipedia now? The problem with a double system is I always forget about commons! --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The new version looks very nice: the contrast is much better, and the slightly wider FOV is a definite improvement. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If i do put it up for FP have i to wait until the wikipedia image is deleted? Otherwise i can see it causing problems --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The simplest thing to do would be to wait for the Wikipedia version to be deleted... but now there is a queue of 18,000 images waiting to be processed. I think the best thing to do would be to upload the newest Commons version over your Wikipedia version: the Wikipedia version will be deleted eventually so the duplication doesn't matter, and it would be good to get the best and latest version into articles and get the FPC ball rolling. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Menai Suspension Bridge

I'm quite pleased with the juxtaposition of the bridge against the snow on the mountains, but would welcome comments as I'm no image guru. I took some other shots that day, and tried for a panoramic shot of the Strait / mountains, but don't have decent stitching software - any suggestions / volunteers?

Articles this image appears in: Menai Suspension Bridge, List of longest suspension bridge spans, Menai Strait

Creator: Bencherlite

Suggested by: Bencherlite ^Talk 13:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The picture looks quite nice (haven't viewed it fullsize so won't comment any further), but for free stitching software you could try hugin (software). It's a bit of a learning curve, but it's open source and can be quite powerful. --jjron (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it fullsize, it wouldn't have sufficient quality for FPC. A shame because it is quite nicely taken. There's just too much image noise (try to keep your ISO right down to no more than 100) and IMO there would not be sufficient sharpness, even allowing for a 'downsize factor'. It's still a good addition. --jjron (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. In fact, the ISO is said to have been 125, so I'm not sure how much better it would have been at 100. Bencherlite^Talk 12:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I saw that. It's hard to know for sure, but on some compacts noise just increases inexplicably as soon as you go past the lowest settings. Another issue is that some cameras (even DSLRs) handle intermediate ISO values like 125 more poorly than standard ones (i.e., 100, 200, 400, 800...). --jjron (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Mountain in Carbon County, Utah

Very good example of a mountain in Carbon County, Utah.

Articles this image appears in: Mountain; Carbon County, Utah

Creator: The Utahraptor

Suggested by: The Utahraptor (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

You're absolutely right, The Utahraptor. This is a very good example of a mountain in Carbon County. In fact, I've driven past this mountain. I'd say it has a strong chance of being promoted. BlackCowboy9 (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EV is quite weak due to it only being used in the 'Mountain' article: the article already has a lot of pictures in it, and there is a good chance that this photograph could be displaced by another photograph. You could try adding it to the Carbon County article, or to other relevant articles about the geography/scenery of Utah. As for the picture itself: the quality is just about adequate, but the composition could be better. In particular, more space at the top of the picture would make the image more appealing. I think it would also benefit from a slight levels adjustment to boost the contrast, but will wait for other views before doing this myself. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Nominated at FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church (Columbia, SC)

**Original** - St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church in 2009

I'm really not sure of the criteria for Valued Pictures. The camera I used could never make an FP, but I think this picture might be a possible VP. This church is on the NRHP. My image is straight, includes the whole building, has a nice blue sky and looks good in the infobox. (There's no moire effect, at least.) Like the previous image I replaced in the article, the image is of the back of the building, but it is next to impossible to get a good shot of the front, which is always obscured by trees and parked cars. Since I took this in December, the trees are bare and one can see more of the architecture. Any input would be valued :) as I am new to this. Thanks. Abductive (reasoning) 06:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church (Columbia, South Carolina)

Creator: Abductive

Suggested by: Abductive (reasoning) 06:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm not really up to date on what goes promoted at VPC, so it's hard for me to estimate its chances. The main technical faults are that it's noisy with some odd banding in the sky, it is somewhat obstructed by trees and playground equipment, and it has perspective distortion. I like to shoot architecture and I know it's often hard to get a good angle, and this seems like a decent but not really exceptional picture. Fletcher (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fletcher's comments regarding the technical shortcomings of the image, so you're right about the image not meeting FP technical criteria. In terms of nominating it as a valued picture I think the quality is sufficient, the framing and composition are good, and is valuable in illustrating an article in the infobox since more than a month, however I am not sure if it meets the criteria for being "among Wikipedia's most educational work of a given subject". Neverthless, if you feel that you can make a case in support of its educational value, feel free to nominate it. Elekhh (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Will not pass at FPC. Unlikely to pass VPC but possibly worth a nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Chakvetadze

Quite apart from the fact that Anna Chakvetadze is one of my top ladies in tennis, I was taken with this portrait the first time I saw it in April. I wanted to nominate it at the time, but I didn't because of the cut off elbow. The more I look, though, the more I've decided that the small framing issue isn't such a big deal. Then I noticed the action shot, which is recent, from the Internazionali BNL d'Italia (Rome Masters) in May this year. In terms of composition, there seems to be too much space at the top, but I'm reluctant to crop it because it would make it very close to the 1000px limit. Otherwise, I think it's excellent, though I wouldn't want to nominate it without first cloning out the spot near her lip. So, which is the better option? What editing might they need? Does a cut off elbow have any chance of making it? And would anyone object to a spot-free chin?

Articles this image appears in: Anna Chakvetadze

Creator: Ralf Reinecke

Suggested by: Maedin\^talk 19:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The cut off elbow wouldn't overly bother me in terms of a portrait (I think a number of our portraits have cut off bits and pieces), though she does look a little less than happy, but generally it's good. My biggest complaint would be that it's been overly downsampled - there is significant artifacting in the background. I would be hesitant to edit it further due to this as it's likely to be made even worse, but if we could get access to a higher quality original the other thing I would consider would be bringing up brightness a bit, particularly on her, and perhaps just try a bit more sharpening. The action shot is quite good, shallow DOF but acceptable, I agree the top should really be cropped a bit, and wouldn't object to the slight clone. Overall, probably better quality. The other thing I'm not sure about is the racquet - unfortunately it's just been cutoff and looks slightly awkward; I considered cropping at left, but I think that would leave it looking even more awkward, and again size is not our friend. Nothing there is necessarily a deal breaker, but they work against it. Given both images appear to be by Wikipedians, would it be worth contacting them and asking if they can help out with slightly bigger/better versions? --jjron (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of EV, I'd consider only the action shot as having enough to satisfy the FP criteria. I'd be inclined to support it: it's not perfect but it certainly adds a great deal to the article. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder
Conclusion

Maedin is trying to get a bigger version. See this. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topaz Gems

it shows many colours of the stone's variations as well as the mystic and azotic coatings.

Articles this image appears in: topaz

Creator: Humanfeather

Suggested by: Humanfeather (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Image is too small to be featured, must be 1000 px on one side. Fletcher (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The depth of field is very shallow, and the overall sharpness is quite poor. The solution to the first problem would involve using a smaller aperture, then using a program like CombineZM to focus stack multiple images. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Cannabis sativa illustration

Please bear with me, as this is the first time I have nominated a picture for any sort of feedback. My interest and goal is to successfully nominate an image of cannabis for featured picture status. All three of the images here are of high resolution, are compelling, have free licenses, add value to cannabis-related articles, and are accurate. The second is an alternate of the first, with a white background. The third is a similar illustration, but by a different author. Trying to determine which of these, if any, are eligible for FP status. Any of the three images could be used for the Cannabis or Cannabis (drug) articles, or even for one of the many additional cannabis-related articles that currently exist on Wikipedia. A similar illustration of a pomegranate with FP status can be found here. Thanks!

Articles this image appears in: Cannabis, Cannabis (drug)

Creator: Otto Wilhelm Thomé, 1885

Suggested by: Another Believer _(Talk) 04:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think that the obvious stains and other deterioration in the image would definitely count against it. With some restoration it might go further. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to just the first image, or all three? --Another Believer _(Talk) 08:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first image would have a good chance if properly restored. The restoration on the two alternates is rather sloppy; there's obvious detail loss, especially in the text, and the contrasty colors look suspect. Thegreenj 02:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Conclusion

Restore it and it has a chance. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial view of Olympic Stadium (Montreal) as seen at night.jpg

High resolution aerial view of structure with very interesting structural architecture with a vantage point that is difficult to recieve under public domain. Also with the Olympics coming around and being held again in Canada, this might be an appropriate time also.

Articles this image appears in: Olympic Stadium (Montreal)

Creator: Simon.filiatreault

Suggested by: Calmer Waters 14:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

To me the stadium is too dark and the whole image looks a bit murky (lots of brown tones). I would prefer to see something taken in better light so we could actually see the stadium a lot more clearly, but would be happy to hear alternative opinions. There's some other technical issues that may be questioned as well I suspect. BTW, I was thinking 'when are the Olympics being held again in Canada', but I guess you're talking about the other Olympics. --jjron (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with jjron. The dark compromises the picture's EV. It wouldn't do well at FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

This picture is wonderful--Simon.filiatreault (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burnley

a large, detailed and very wide pano showing the town of burnley as well as a host of features in the surrounding geography.

Articles this image appears in: Burnley

Creator: Childzy ¤ Talk 16:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested by: Childzy ¤ Talk 16:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

What is the blue smoke 2/5 of the way in from the right? Was it present in the actual scene itself? NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it is just smoke, thats burnley for you! --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good: I originally thought it looked too blue to be smoke, but I'll take your word for it. I think this is worth putting in at FPC. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Conclusion

Nominated (and passed) at FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle

I think this image shows the beauty of a space shuttle launch without actually having to be there. I've been to several launches and the night ones easily are the most spectacular. Even after seeing this very launch with my own eyes, I was speechless after seeing this photo. Unfortunately, it only now appears on the Italian wiki STS-130 page as a different user removed this image and another (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:STS-130_Shuttle_Launch1.jpg). I would like to add it back to the STS-130 page, but it will continually be removed. I think it should not only be a featured image (along with the other shuttle launch photo), but that it should be re-linked to STS-130. If it gets to be featured, no one will take it down.

Articles this image appears in: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-130

Creator: Shane Lin

Suggested by: 350z33 (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It won't get featured without a stable place in the article. It has serious noise problems, lens flare and you can barely see the shuttle, so it wouldn't pass FPC anyway. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

1 Ilica Street

I simply stumbled upon this picture on Commons while writing the article about the building. I think it has encyclopedic value and simply looks good. I don't usually deal with photographs on wikipedia so I wanted to put it here for review to see whether it stands any chance of gaining FP or VP status. Thanks for your comments.

Articles this image appears in: 1 Ilica Street

Creator: Suradnik13

Suggested by: Timbouctou (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's a nice picture (accompanying a v. interesting article too), but I'd prefer to see a version where the building is visible right down to the ground and with more sky visible at the top. I don't think it would have much chance of gaining FP status. I don't follow the VP page, so can't comment about how successful it would be there. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would have a chance as Valued Picture either. The bottom crop is too bad. --Elekhh (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Jewry Wall and St Nicholas, Leicester

Good points: high resolution and adequately sharp, good EV, nice lighting on the main subject. Bad points (explaining why I posted it here and not at FPC): shadow and noise in bottom right corner, overexposed building on left, "it's just a wall".

Articles this image appears in: Jewry Wall, St Nicholas' Church, Leicester, Scheduled Monuments in Leicester, Grade I listed buildings in Leicester, Ratae Corieltauvorum

Creator: NotFromUtrecht

Suggested by: NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I would like to see it featured. I think the shadow actually makes the wall stand out better. 12:51, 13 March 2010 Humanfeather

Thanks for your comment, but I'm erring towards not bothering with this one. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Cacatua galerita

I think this image would be a suitable Featured or Valued Picture, because a close-up of a bird can be very difficult to get, the clarity, lighting and angle are quite good. The subject of the photo is also fairly good. (I've never submitted anything to the Picture peer review, also I have never requested any sort of recognition for my images, is this good enough quality?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesDouch (talk • contribs) 07:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: Sulphur-crested Cockatoo, User:JamesDouch/gallery

Creator: Photo captured by JamesDouch

Suggested by: JamesDouch (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Its encyclopedic value is very limited, since it's only used in a gallery in the Sulphur-crested Cockatoo article, and the article already contains several high-quality pictures, meaning that there is no scope for making this picture more prominent. This would cause it to fail as a Featured Picture Candidate. This also causes the picture to fail criterion #1 of the Valued picture criteria. As for the picture itself, even if it were prominently located in an article, I don't think it would pass as a Featured Picture: the angle is a bit awkward, and the picture is underexposed. Saying all this, it is an interesting picture, and I like the quirky angle: it's just that it doesn't have what it takes to gain either FP or VP status. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, that all sounds fair enough. thanks. --JamesDouch (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Lemur catta

To me, the image is a good portrait picture of a Ring-tailed Lemur, showing the full body, face and tail. However, it may need some cleaning up. Suggestions and clean-up help would be appreciated, if possible.

Articles this image appears in: Ring-tailed Lemur

Creator: Visionholder

Suggested by: Visionholder (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I don't think the quality is good enough for FPC. Did you use digital zoom while taking the picture? --Muhammad(talk) 18:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I specifically avoided digital zoom the entire trip so that I would have good photos when I got home. I was very disappointed with what I thought was my best photo when I zoomed in. I guess I'm going to have to save up for a new camera. I'm also sick of these cameras that save in JPEG format – I prefer TIF. –Visionholder (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You'll be unlikely to find a camera that saves in TIFF. You're looking for Raw. FWIW a good camera will do a pretty good job with jpeg. Make sure you check your settings though. I usually set them to 'large' and 'fine', though some cameras have a 'superfine' option (but I usually can't see any difference from fine with the image straight from the camera, other than massively increased filesizes). Looking at the exif here though, it seems you've used those settings. For some reason no ISO info is given - I'd guess that this has used auto ISO and cranked it up along with in camera noise reduction, thus producing this quality. These cameras can do better if you keep them to their native ISO range (on this one I'd keep it at ISO 100 whenever possible), though of course the further you zoom from the more they'll struggle with detail as you'd expect (how far away do you reckon this was?). If you're looking at new cameras and you don't want or can't afford a DSLR I'd recommend the Canon G11 as something to strongly consider at a reasonable price. --jjron (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately, I looks like it was set to ISO/Auto, and I just changed it to ISO/HI (only other setting). Damn. As for zoom, I was standing very close to the lemur, so zoom was minimal. I can't say it enough.... DAMN! For three months in Madagascar, I thought I might have a FPC, and I blew it. Well, let me look at some of my other photos, but I'm guessing even the best ones will also suffer the same problems. My digital macro settings seem to have had ISO on HI... unless that changed when I changed my Auto settings. Maybe one of my many close-ups of the various insects or reptiles might be better... Anyway, thanks for the detailed feedback and helpful suggestions. – Visionholder (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Pusch Ridge

Great lighting, nice subject.

Articles this image appears in: Pusch Ridge, Oro Valley

Creator: iBen

Suggested by: iBen^discuss 01:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Rather blurred. To me it does not seem be be inspirational. Snowman (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Potato with sprouts.jpg

Very few good quality images of potatoes sprouting.

Articles this image appears in: Potato

Creator: ZooFari

Suggested by: Zoo Fari 23:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I would definitely support at FPC. I would like to see this same image done in the way Fir did his oranges, with one specimen next to it cut in half. ❄ upstate NYer ❄ 23:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, but I wasn't able to get the DOF good enough with two specimens. I don't know how Fir did (maybe acquire one specimen at a time and then combine). That's beyond my skill and already had home-made potato chips for lunch :/. I'll nominate for FPC and see what everyone else thinks. Zoo Fari 18:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take the specimen photograph it. Cut it and photograph it. Combine the two in PS --196.45.152.109 (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I believe that's what Fir usually did. --jjron (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC. --jjron (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball arena

Nice illustration of a basketball arena

Articles this image appears in: Marriott Center, Arena, Brigham Young University, BYU Cougars men's basketball

Creator: ~~Eustress~~ Mark A. Philbrick

Suggested by: —Eustress ^talk 01:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Are you really the creator (Mark A. Philbrick (Brigham Young University)? Other than that I'm not entirely sure about the empty stadium. May need to ponder that a bit more. --jjron (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't sure what to put for creator, so thanks (I'll update accordingly). Regarding your other concern, I'm not sure the fact that the arena is empty takes away from the pics value. There are several FPs featuring empty structures; e.g., File:LuzLissabon.jpg, File:Donbas arena construction panorama.jpg, File:National Cathedral Sanctuary Panorama.jpg. —Eustress ^talk 15:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh yeah, that's why I said I needed to ponder it. It does undoubtedly have EV, but the empty stadium just seems to kill any 'wow' if you get what I mean. Quality seems decent enough, perhaps a little soft. I don't know if people would possibly expect a little more from an empty stadium - you know a bit bigger, a pano, going right to the top of the stands, etc. I can't really say. To be honest I don't think I'd get beyond neutral myself, but can't see much that I'd actually oppose. --jjron (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Closed by nominator and transferred to WP:FPC.

Naajaat

This is from an exotic place, which can only be reached by helicoptor or boat. The view is excellent and it gives a precise representation of a small present day Greenlandic settlement. There are no shops in this settlement. So either you catch your food yourself (seal hunting or fishing) or you have to travel by motor boat for more than one hour to the closest settlement. It is a stitch of 18 handheld photos taken with a compact camera in 2007. The technical quality is not perfect (which is my main concern). There is a varying degree of softness in some photos used in the stitch. Moreover, there are some overexposed areas in the left hand side. Personally I think it is overcompensated by the visual qualities of the scene, but I wonder if reviewers think it would stand a chance? --Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: Naajaat

Creator: Slaunger

Suggested by: Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Do you still have the original files? I don't think the overexposed areas are a deal breaker, but the soft areas might be. It may just need a restitch. Looks pretty nice at thumb though. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do have the original files. The are problems with softness in some of those - or should I say that, they are crisp enough but mainly at the mountains in the background. I do not think the softness is due to the stitch. I recall spending quite some hours fiddling with in in Hugin in december 2007, but since then Hugin has improved guite a bit as well and it may be worth trying to restitch it. A good thing is that there is good overlap between the individual frames. A somewhat hard thing is handling the boat which is drifting from frame to frame. I think it goes beyond my abilities to improve much on it though, but I would be happy to upload the individual images to get a second opinion of chances of improvement. Now that I have a DSLR it is somewhat dissapointing to look over three year old photos from a compact camera. I should not have been such a skinflint back then with investments in equipment as the views were really breathtaking and worth capturing with better equipment. :-) --Slaunger (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded all the source photographs and linked to them from the source field on the file page in case someone wants to evaluate it this can be done better in a new stitch. I do not think I can make it much better myself. I someone want to try themselves with a new stitch, I would be grateful. --Slaunger (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I restitched it. I think the most glaring problem (some blurryness about 1/3rd from the right) has been improved by omitting a frame. There are still some less significant foreground problems. I'd give it a go, there aren't many photos from that part of the world. To avoid the problem in future focus about a third of the way into the scene, then go to manual focus. If your camera doesn't have a manual focus mode, then hold the shutter button depressed half way and it won't change. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks a lot for helping me on this one, Noodle snacks! AFAIK you do not have that much internet bandwidth, and I really appreciate that you have taken you time to download all those photos and work on that not so great base material. I agree with your comments. The panorame has undergone significant improvements with your restitch. I have a DSLR now and I am much more in control of photos for panoramas nowadays than then, where autofocus played me a trick on my compact camera. I have added you as coauthor on the file page. Please check that it is as you would like it to be. I also deleted some postprocessing details from the file description as I guess you must have followed another procedure. It is still stated that hugin was used for stitching. I do not know if that is what you have used? If you have used something else, would you mind updating the file page description - just the English description? OK. I will give it a go and try to nominate it and see what happens... --Slaunger (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Conclusion

Closed by nominator and nominated at WP:FPC --Slaunger (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]