Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:FirePhotography.jpg

Image:FirePhotography.jpg, featured

•  Info created by Sylvain Pedneault - uploaded by Sylvain Pedneault - nominated by Sylvain Pedneault --Sypecom 01:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Sypecom 01:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive! And thank you for offering this to us =) Only thing that might make it even better would be if geocoding - giving the approximate location you were at when the photo was taken - was possible. Adam Cuerden 03:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Done, thank you for pointing that out! :) Sypecom 13:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Richard Bartz 09:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Luc Viatour 11:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Superb composition. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 12:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Fantastic! A bit blurry at full resolution, but still acceptable. --startaq 14:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 15:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent! --Booksworm 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Question Has any (unfortunate) postprocessing been done on this photo? I see lots of noise and posterization and a generally bad technical condition. Or is it just me? Surprising, as the camera is a decent one. Good timing, btw. -- Slaunger 20:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
•  SupportSlaunger, I perfectly understand your worries, but I don't think noise is the first thing you think about when taking a short of a burning building. It is ISO 400 and it is not landscape photography, where you can contemplate all day about the exposure and ISO choices. :) Freedom to share 22:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   Comment I am very much aware that at these conditions you cannot expect a technical quality, which is on par with, e.g., landscapes. But even under fire fighting conditions I think the technical quality is substandard (see FP fire fighting example). The fire fighting example has much more visual appeal for me, whereas this nomination is of a more informational and educational character (which is excellent). In this nomination you can see how the individual fire fighters are positioned, and the actions they are engaged in. The question is whether this valuable content outweighs the technical flaws. I am not sure... -- Slaunger 07:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • True, but I think during post processing this image could have been improved. It's still an excellent image though, but it is a bit blurry and noisy. /Daniel78 22:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That draws the line between FPC and POTY. It should succeed in one, but not the other. Freedom to share 07:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Isn't that just the smoke, steam, mist, and so on? Adam Cuerden 03:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Not something you see every day. Calibas 05:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with slaunger, too noisy -- Gorgo 14:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Info About the noise: it is not photographic noise, it is a very large quantity of water droplets coming from the numerous high-arc streams protecting the church and attacking the involved building. It was raining all over, and keeping the lens dry was quite a challenge. But although the image at top resolution is a bit blurry, the noise you see is definitely heavy rain coming from the water lines, and thus that is part of the scene as well. Sypecom 15:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Comment Thank you for explaining that. It now seems like there is a reasonable explanation for the technical condition of the image. It is not due to some unfortunate postprocessing but waterspray. I am, however, not entirely convinced, but I think I'll just abstain from voting as I find it borderline. -- Slaunger 15:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Support --Karelj 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 07:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support The timing is particularly good, with the balcony collapsing. Durova 02:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Mønobi 16:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice composition, great capture, but how can we feature such a bad quality and still ask to be taken serious? Lycaon 19:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -LadyofHats 17:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose - If it was a historic or unique building I could accept the poor quality --Ianare 18:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 09:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)