Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Street Trinidad Cuba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Street Trinidad Cuba

I am nominating this picture because it depicts the movement and life in the little town of Trinidad, Cuba.

This stitched 360 panoramic view was created by (c) Jean-Pierre Lavoie using a Canon Digital Rebel XT camera.

• Nominate and support. - Jplavoie 13:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice, there is a minor stitching fault with the power lines at the very top of the frame, and on the far left of the frame just to the right of the balcony support. Otherwise, very nice, and very different! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Update. There is also a duplication of the two kids walking down the road... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Provides a great feel of the place, even with the clones and some quality issues. (The shadows beneath the roof of the green building are fairly grainy, for example.) It should also be noted that the article it represents is a stub. bcasterline t 16:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support nice. The 'stiching fault' in the window on the left is actaully the way the window looks, take a look at the windows on the right. -Ravedave 22:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually no, have a look below the window. It is a stitching fault. You can see the way the pavement tiles do not line up, and there is a dark smudge line along the seam. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Having been in that town myself, I can tell that this photo is nothing special at all. It does not really tell the story of Trinidad and its people (looks almost deserted on that picture which it sure is not - where are the little shops, the kids playing or selling things on the street, the old men sitting in front of their houses, the old Chevys,...). Being a panorama, there should be at least some of those things on the picture. It is just a usual tourist snapshot - not a good one either. Mikeo 22:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's ironic then that all of the things you list as wanting in the image are cliches of tourist snapshots! this is different, that is why it's good.--Deglr6328 23:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Anyway, with those things missing, it does not look like Trinidad for me. I guess for an encyclopedia, this should be important. When I said 'tourist snapshot' I was rather indicating the randomness and carelessness of how the subject was chosen. Mikeo 07:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - good. though the two walking at the left/center where the seem to be in the exact same step except for they switched the walking stick is kinda freaky!--Deglr6328 23:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: nothing spectacular, and I'm not a big fan of the colors in this. --Hetar 04:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Clones are unacceptable for me. ~MDD4696 17:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Nice quality, sharpness and exposure are good, the stitching is quite ok too, it would have been an extra effort to shoot some frames twice to suppress the cloning. But the subject itself is not that thrilling. I'm torn. --Dschwen 15:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand it is not less thrilling than that deserted australian ski-resort we seem to be having two featured pictures of shortly... --Dschwen 15:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose unless there is an article about how you can create clones in pictures... because that is pretty awesome. gren グレン 01:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Hadn't intended to vote, but that commentary made me look. Nice magic trick, but spoils the encyclopedicity (is that a word? ;-) Also, stitching glitch. --Janke | Talk 06:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I like the subject and image, but the clones totally kill it for me. Can you photoshop them out? Stevage 09:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - the clones make it a bit surreal to me. --Wikimol 17:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 22:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)