Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Liberty Island photo D Ramey Logan.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Liberty Island photo D Ramey Logan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2015 at 13:21:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Liberty Island
  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places
  •  Info created by D Ramey Logan - uploaded by WPPilot - nominated by WPPilot -- WPPilot (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- WPPilot (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry,bad quality,bad perspective,bad light.....and need category--LivioAndronico talk 13:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose due to quality problems (sharpness &c.). --Tremonist (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - the main features (the island and the structure) are sharp enough, given the distance; it could follow the rule of thirds but in this instance I think the scale is fine; meets the other general requirements (license, 2+mpx etc); biggest plus point is that it is used on a number of articles. Green Giant (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Size, sharpness and subject are fine, it's not an angle which can be gotten by any tourist or from the ferries or tourist boats. I don't see "rule of thirds" in the requirements for featured pictures. I totally fail to see "bad quality" or "bad perspective" or "bad light" here, I see an image which is in wide use across the project which fits the featured picture requirements. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose No Wow, average-bad light conditions --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry but not FP imo. I dont think 1/320 sec was enough. The images is blurred, over sharpening can not repair it. I dont understand the choice of apperture, you dont need f/9 when you are using a very sharp prime lens (infinite focus here anyway). High educational value, but not one of our finest aerial images.--ArildV (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I took this from a helicopter. It was not gyro mounted and as a result of the shake of the rotors, I used f9 @ 1/320 in an attempt to reduce the vibration of the blades. You can see it first hand here --WPPilot (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • But why not F/4 (or even 2.8) and shorter exposure time since you dont need a small aperture here? The lens is sharp even wide open, and you are on only using a part of the lens (DX camera, and you are also using the crop mode in D7100).--ArildV (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm willing to relax the lighting conditions a bit due to the unique perspective (which alone counts for a good deal of "wow"). But it's just far too unsharp. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I disagree with Ellin Beltz: This is an angle which can be gotten by any tourist if they are willing to pay for the Chopper ride, as there are several companies offering helicopter tours around NYC. There are tons of images like this out there, and frankly I don't think this one is above average concerning wow-factor. That's not really the photographer's fault though, as quality is quite OK for a picture taken under those conditions. I'd mainly blame my oppose on the unattractive weather conditions, which don't really contribute to the image (to pick up the wording of COM:Image guidelines) and probably contributed to the observed unsharpness (lots of moisture in the air). However, after a very quick look at the category, it seems that this might be a good candidate for COM:VI because of the good perspective. --El Grafo (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Very strong oppose Besides the amply-documented technical issues, there's the composition—Liberty's head against the very cluttered background of Northeastern New Jersey does not make for anything in the way of wow. And then the timing ... I'm sorry, but having lived in or near that area for most of my life I would have waited till warmer weather, or at least a sunnier day. It would have to be beautiful and green for this image to even begin to have a chance ... at QI, that is. Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As others. -- Pofka (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thanks! Some replies: Not living in NYC, I think it's really cool to see how close Liberty is to New Jersey. Also I am a bit distressed that featured pictures are only ever bright blue skies, or glowing colored sunsets. That may be featured, but it's not very realistic and after a while begins to feel trite. Bright blue skies also produce shadows which compete with the subject of many architecturals and while they may make great WOWs, they obscure the information. I'm not arguing against anything ya'll said, I'm only putting a thought in your mind that this system is producing great photos for the lead pages yes, but also beginning to look very redundant in appearance. Too much color, too much contrast, too much sharpening and it all starts to look like CGI. On a prior nomination of an award-winning photograph of a redwood forest I was told "anyone could take this, but they should wait for a sunny day". The teller must not have ever been in the old growth redwoods because it WAS a sunny day, the trees produce mist and are very tall and no sunlight hits the ground. That - of course - is not applicable in this case, New York does get sun, but I personally found this image of great interest due to the colors not being green and blue with fluffy white clouds and noticing how close she was to New Jersey was a real mind blower. Those WOW shots you linked have deep shadows and make her look like she's 90 miles from shore. Is that WOW or education? Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC) PS before anyone gets mad at me, I'm only commenting - I'm not upset about any of these comments, but I am arguing for a bit more flexibility in the system.[reply]
@Ellin Beltz: Believe it or not, it's actually possible to have a civil, respectful discussion at FPC, so no worries about that ;-) In fact, I actually agree with many of your points. I'm firmly convinced that a nice sunny day can not be a requirement for a FP and that such conditions alone are not enough to make a picture FP. Any kind of weather is fine in general, as long as it makes sense for the image. There are actually at least three factors that should be considered in this regard, imho.
1) is lighting conditions. The light we have here is very diffuse with hardly any shadows at all, which in this case makes the main subject look rather flat. On the other hand, you are of course right when you say that a bright sunny day usually has deep and sharp shadows, which may or may not be a bad thing, depending on the subject. But there are options between these two extremes. For example, when the sun stands lower, shadows become longer, but softer. Maybe shooting around the golden hour would've worked here …
2) is mood, which is a bit harder to grasp. Here, the bright sunny day usually is a safe bet, because that's what people tend to like. But it's not a requirement, as this current candidate proves, and even really bad weather can lead to very attractive images. My personal approach to photographing in "bad weather" conditions is: Try to make sure the image looks good because of the weather, not despite it (which is basically just a rephrasing of what is written in our image guidelines). In this case (imho), the weather is neither good nor bad, it's just boring. Even that is not a bad thing per se, but in this case it doesn't really work with this scene (again: imho).
3) is influence on image quality. A lot of moisture in the air can severely affect sharpness, but so can heat haze over a hot surface in summer. Whether that's a bad thing or not may depend on the image and should probably be weighed against 1) and 2).
OK, I guess I'll better stop now. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Liberty_Island_photo_D_Ramey_Logan.jpg&oldid=161425548"