Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Aurion in Canberra
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Toyota Aurion in Canberra
- Reason
- The "Toyota Aurion" article features many images showing the raw details of the vehicle. What I felt was needed was an eye catching, descriptive info box image that depicts both the visual style of the vehicle and the "feel" of the vehicle.
Some may consider the background a distraction. The juxtaposition however is designed to place emphasis on the vehicle. The viewer's eye will be drawn across the image, the technique arguably enhances the viewed comprehension of the visual stimulus. It is a more deliberate and measured composition than the many images on Wikipedia showing vehicles with far more distracting backgrounds and claustrophobic cropping.
The digital manipulation is a possibly controversial factor, however, reason exists for the manipulation. The vehicle is available in several colours, each shows the vehicle with a different character. The simplicity of this image, black and white, allows the viewer to appreciate the design of the vehicle without the colour influencing the viewer's perception.
Finally, a technical note. This image may well be one of the highest resolution single exposure images (as distinct from stitched images) on Wikipedia. Originally taken using a 21MP Canon 1Ds mkIII, the final image uploaded under free license is still around 5MP and saved in maximum quality JPEG ensuring technical quality.
In summary, it shows the subject of the article in a visually informative and engaging way, free from distracting reflections and bias factors such as colour and will enhance viewer comprehension and recognition. This image is a change from the norm, but I believe a positive one.
- Articles this image appears in
- Toyota Aurion
- Creator
- User:Capital photographer
- Withdraw Support as nominator Capital photographer (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose This would be a good photo in a magazine ad, but not in an encyclopedia. The building is the eyecatcher here, so enc value is low (one editor removed this image, reasoning Fixed picture to focus more on the car since this is a car article.). Also, blown highlights, and what looks like some odd, soft filtering, i.e. this photo too "artsy" for a technical article. Try Commons instead... --Janke | Talk 09:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Janke. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very nice image but doesn't meet the encyclopaedic standards required for featured status. Guest9999 (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Great photo, but not for an encyclopedia. crassic![talk] 03:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose due to lac of enc. No reason for B&W on a modern photo. Cacophony (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. For those reasons staed above. Spinach Dip 08:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support While this doesn't have a chance of passing at this stage, I thought I'd say something in favor. The most important criterion for a FP candidate, IMO, is that it be a visually arresting image which captures the reader's interest and draws him/her into reading the article. I certainly believe this is the case here. The above arguments are all legitimate, and this is more fitting for a magazine advert than an encyclopedia article, but I feel the picture is good enough to warrant at least some support. faithless (speak) 10:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- The criteria for a FP on Wikipedia states: "An image's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value." Please familiarize yourself with these if you plan on voting here often. Pretty sunsets and artistic B&W portraits have a place Commons FP, but here we the first and foremost and foremost concern is illustrating an encyclopedia. Cacophony (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, where to start - okay, first off, your tone is condescending, insulting and not at all warranted. Second, I regularly participate in these discussions (last time I checked we don't "vote" on Wikipedia), and am fairly familiar with the FP criteria. Does the fact that I saw some value in this image really warrant such a vehement disparaging? As I said, I know this didn't have a chance of being promoted; but as the nominator/creator is new around here, I thought I'd give him a bit of support to let him know that he and his contributions are appreciated. I've honestly been left speechless here - not an easy feat to accomplish, but your rude, snide and totally uncalled-for comment has done exactly that. You may want to familiarize yourself with WP:CIVILITY. faithless (speak) 20:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- The criteria for a FP on Wikipedia states: "An image's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value." Please familiarize yourself with these if you plan on voting here often. Pretty sunsets and artistic B&W portraits have a place Commons FP, but here we the first and foremost and foremost concern is illustrating an encyclopedia. Cacophony (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Shouldn't be B&W. Try Commons. Kaldari (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Janke makes a good point. Enc is important. SpencerT♦C 22:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I hate to nail this just on being obsessive over having a "traditional" composition, and I sort of understand what you're getting at by each color reflecting a slightly different car, hence b&w. (You couldn't get a line of every color and take a picture of all of them?) However, the artsy composition does it in for me, despite a fair point by Faithlessthewonderboy. Sorry.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted . --John254 14:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
