Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 23:42:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stanley Steamer at 2009 Newport Hill Climb 1.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stanley Steamer at 2009 Newport Hill Climb 1.png
Oppose Somehow I fail to see how this image is special. The quality is good, but not stellar, composition is mediocre at best (several heads cut off in the foreground), and the use of the PNG format appears nonsensical. It just isn't made for photos, results in a ridiculously high file size, and given the average image quality is simply unneccessary. -- JovanCormac13:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks for the comments. I see what you mean about the heads; however, in dense crowd shots such as these it can be impossible to find a crop that doesn't cut through at least a few individuals, so I chose to give precedence to the placement of the central subject. As for filesize, it could be reduced as a JPEG, but it didn't strike me as ridiculous or prohibitive given that other featured images and candidates in JPEG format range much larger (some above 10-15MB). Thanks! Huwmanbeing☀★14:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Suggestions on how this can be improved? I'm happy to make adjustments, but "too much going on" seems an odd critique of a photo of a race. I'm also not sure how a photo of a crowd can reasonably be cropped without cutting through someone. Thanks Huwmanbeing☀★03:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I honestly can't believe that someone oppose this image with reasons like that. Too much going on? Well, this picture actually is about too much going on. The composition is anything but mediocre. You can't put the whole Universe in the image - something needs to be cut off. These heads in the first plan are just the part of the composition, implying that there are people on the other side, siting and watching. There's no need for them to be seen more than they are. And what does it matter if it's PNG? It's now 7,55 MB. If you save this as jpeg it's 3,71 MB. Big deal. Gee, you oppose this picture for really dull reasons. --Lošmi (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd better believe that, if one wants to oppose an image a reason could always be found :) --Mbz1 (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)18:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would any of the oppose voters support this alternative version which has the heads removed and is a JPG file? Note that I needed to use the clone tool to get rid of the tops of some heads as I didn't want to crop off the shadow or wheel. I also narrowed it slightly to make up for decreasing the height. --SilversmithHewwo09:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Huwmanbeing - uploaded by Huwmanbeing - nominated by Huwmanbeing -- Huwmanbeing ☀★ 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Huwmanbeing ☀★ 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Question Could you please explain why you're using PNG format? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Somehow I fail to see how this image is special. The quality is good, but not stellar, composition is mediocre at best (several heads cut off in the foreground), and the use of the PNG format appears nonsensical. It just isn't made for photos, results in a ridiculously high file size, and given the average image quality is simply unneccessary. -- JovanCormac 13:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment It's usually the front row shots that get featurable composition. 99of9 (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
