Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Reed bed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Reed bed

A previously sandy beach invaded by reeds

Edit 1, more vertical space, higher resolution, less saturation in the green

OK, here's one for you to shoot down... ;-) I think the encyclopedicity overweighs the aesthetic aspects, for instance the tight cropping and the little patch of blown sky. It appears in Reed bed and Phragmites, and does add value to those articles.

• Self-nominate and support edit 1. - Janke | Talk 08:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support I'll not shoot this one down. But I'm normally driven by the aesthtetical aspects more than the encyclopedic ones. In this case, the distortion due to a large FOV is not evident and the picture is nice to look at. - Alvesgaspar 10:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The framing makes it like looking through a mail-slot. It is pretty wide, but some more room in the vertical would benefit the picture. --Dschwen 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too wide for me to consider voting 'Support'. --SonicChao 20:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Width is not constrained by the FPC criteria per se, as long as an image is sufficiently wide, which this one is. Debivort 22:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose tight cropping, per Dschwen, also therefore lacking resolution on vertical axis. Debivort 22:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• weak support - normally I don't care that much about blown highlights, they don't "distract me" much. However there is quite a field of white above the treeline - so my support is weak. Debivort 18:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per Debivort. --Ineffable3000 23:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Despite the vertical cropping, I think this still represents its subject well. --Tewy 04:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support edit 1. More shown vertically, but then more of the blown sky is shown, sadly. --Tewy 22:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Would the opposers consider supporting a version with added vertical resolution/size? I could give the originals to one of the "wiki stitch experts" - this was my very first attempt using Hugin... --Janke | Talk 07:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well depends on how big your original is and are they aligned well. If it goes all over the place then no matter how good a person is with Hugin or anny other software you can't get a good stitch. Try do a multi-row or shoot images in portrait if you don't want the hassel of stiching multi row panoramas.
    • Can't do a reshoot until next summer, it's all covered in snow now... --Janke | Talk 12:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• New version, not really an edit, but a total re-stitch. This should address the concerns voiced above (so please don't complain about the blown sky... ;-) --Janke | Talk 15:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support edit1 - I won't shoot down this one either. No full support beacuse of blown sky... Alvesgaspar 15:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - New version just gives blown out skies and not much more about the reeds. It's the reeds that's supposed to be illustrating, and composition is not good for that purpose (the most left quarter is basically useless). --antilived ^{T | C} 08:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)