Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lunar-eclipse-2004
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Lunar-eclipse-2004
I think this image is somewhat unique and beautiful. I've never seen one like it. I took it during the last full lunar eclipse of 2004.
- Nominate and support. - Mactographer 12:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong oppose... no FP should have text like that on it. gren グレン 12:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's highly informative and just the kind of photo I'd love to see featured... except for the text at the bottom. Wikipedia gives attribution to photographers on the image page, not in captions or on the image itself. Also, FYI, Wiki requires you to license images freely worldwide for any use, commercial or otherwise -- just want to be sure you understand that. -- Moondigger 13:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Yeah, as above. This would be pretty good if not for the self-advertising. --jjron 13:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose As already said, writing on the bottom is not acceptable - Adrian Pingstone 13:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment its copyright is open, anyone can chop the text off and re-upload. -Ravedave 14:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose even with the text gone i dont like this photo, it looks to fake. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 17:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose There's definitely something not quite right about this - how, for example, did the photographer manage capture the moon in front of the clouds? --Yummifruitbat 18:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- My guess he took one image containing the clouds and then pasted only the moon from the other pictures. --Dschwen 19:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, it looks like a standard technique in which multiple exposures are made on a single frame from a fixed location. The clouds were probably present in the second exposure, forcing him to use a longer shutter speed to get the moon to shine through. For subsequent exposures the clouds had cleared, but since the clouds were already present in the frame from the second exposure, the moon appears to be in front of them. By the time the moon had risen much in the photo it was probably fully night time, but because the sky was exposed during twilight for the first few exposures it looks blue instead of black. -- Moondigger 19:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. neat idea, but the foreground is rather bad, plus there is that annoying copyright notice. Cropping will only worsen the pic since it'll lack a sense of scale then. --Dschwen 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Will support if the text is removed. --Neutralitytalk 19:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong oppose The text is not something to have on a Featured Picture.--Canadianshoper 20:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment FYI, the photo is not a “fake”, however, it is a composite of many exposures with the moon spliced into the BG of the original exposure made shortly after dusk. The initiated may read about the process here. It's been received well everywhere else it's been shown ... but here. I withdraw the nomination. -Mactographer
- Ah, I see. This kind of image is much easier to do on film, which is what I thought you did. I would suggest that you upload a version that doesn't contain the text at the bottom -- I would definitely support a version that complies with Wiki guidelines. -- Moondigger 21:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I might take you up on your suggestion, Moondigger. Your comments were the most constructive. But since I am giving up copyright in uploading to Wikipedia — which is anathema to most professional photographers who live and die by getting paid, and/or getting credit for their hard work — I wanted to make sure of attribute by using the standard convention of embedding such in the image when placed on the web. I suppose the Creative Commons licenses cover attribute, but in practice, images on the web get snapped up right and left, often without so much as a tip of the hat to the creator of the work. -Mactographer
- Who says you have to give up copyright? That's a misconception! See Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#What_is_copyright.3F. --Dschwen 22:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say the photo was faked, just that it didn't look right. I maintain that (particularly since it isn't a multiple exposure, and the moon has, as Dschwen said, effectively been pasted on top, albeit by a somewhat more elaborate method) the image looks artificial with the moon in front of the cloud. Aside from that, I don't find the image all that striking; there isn't enough detail in the moon itself to make this a particularly good illustration of a lunar eclipse. On the subject of the copyright notice, surely you've no greater guarantee of attribution with the notice, as anyone willing to rip off your image without giving you credit is unlikely to have any qualms about cropping the text? --Yummifruitbat 01:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sheesh, Fruitbat! Didn't the remaining eclipsed moons on the dark blue sky rather than black night sky clue you into the fact it was a composite? Of course all the separate moons were pasted over the remaining original photo of the early evening sky. Cuz the "point of the photo” was to show the progression of the moon as it came in and out of the eclipse, relative to the location it was in the sky at any given moment during the lunar event. The point was NOT to detail the moon in close up fashion. That kind of photograph has been recorded ad nauseam. Who hasn’t seen a close up shot of a red moon? However, I’ve never seen another lunar eclipse photo quite like this with the horizon as a reference point. In any case, it’s been highly rated in other forums. Only this forum has seen fit to shred it. So for the 3rd time, I withdraw my nomination for FP. I’m finished defending my position on it. (Note the time stamp on this message post-dates the one below. This is my last round on this subject.) --Mactographer 08:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I might take you up on your suggestion, Moondigger. Your comments were the most constructive. But since I am giving up copyright in uploading to Wikipedia — which is anathema to most professional photographers who live and die by getting paid, and/or getting credit for their hard work — I wanted to make sure of attribute by using the standard convention of embedding such in the image when placed on the web. I suppose the Creative Commons licenses cover attribute, but in practice, images on the web get snapped up right and left, often without so much as a tip of the hat to the creator of the work. -Mactographer
- Ah, I see. This kind of image is much easier to do on film, which is what I thought you did. I would suggest that you upload a version that doesn't contain the text at the bottom -- I would definitely support a version that complies with Wiki guidelines. -- Moondigger 21:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Mactographer, could I also suggest you read about Wikipedia Spam. Not that this exactly fits into the guidelines given there, but I think it borders on it. --jjron 07:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- jjron Can you explain? What kind of SPAMing are you suggesting I'm guilty of? The fact that as a photographer, I wish to have a little credit for my creations? Then clap me in irons and throw away the key, I'm guilty!! Besides, as I have mentioned above, I withdraw my nomination for FP. If that means I should delete all the messages here, then I'll do that if that's the wiki-protocol.Mactographer 07:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Did you read the Spam guidelines? What I'm saying is that the text in this photo directs users to an external website that does not further any user's understanding of this topic. The website (correct me if I'm wrong) is essentially a site which advertises your services. In Wikipedia (again, someone correct me if I'm wrong) this constitutes spamming. This is nothing about the FP nomination, any text added to a pic (unless for a pupose to add meaning to the pic) would result in opposes here, this is about the nature of the text itself. --jjron 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. It's the photographer's personal website which (in addition to advertising his services) is also a link to provide information about the photographer and contact information should someone seek to license the photograph in a different manner. I see no problem from a "spam" standpoint with the text, but agree that text of any sort that's not "informative" about the subject should not be there. The website info can go on the image description page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that it is necessary to visit an external site to get the required information about the author. Any information relevent to the licencing and attribution should be on the userpage. An external link to a personal site is almost always just a vanity link or an attempt to draw commercial work from wikipedia viewers, which is not what wikipedia is about. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Oppose. It's a great idea, conceptually, but I think the implementation is flawed. While I understand, per Macto's explanation above, WHY the moon is in front of the cloud, I find that it distracts from the image. Add that to the text at the bottom and you've got an oppose. Now, without the text, I would probably change my vote to Neutral, but I doubt I could Support the image with the "cloud issue" unresolved. On a side-note, it's nice to see someone local on the FPC page (I'm from Fremont). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Why not take off the text and resubmit the photo? – Morganfitzp 00:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
