Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Big Mac

Big Mac

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2014 at 18:45:18 (UTC)

Original – The Big Mac is a hamburger sold by McDonald's. It was introduced in the metropolitan area of Pittsburgh in 1967 and nationwide in 1968.

Alt - canvas size increased to 125%, burger lowered slightly

Reason: High quality image about a notable hamburger = high EV.
Articles in which this image appears: Big Mac (most EV), Hamburger, +3 other
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Creator: Evan-Amos

Support alt as nominator – Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm slightly worried this might look better than the hamburger really is. Any information about how much manipulation of the burger happened? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks pretty realistic to me. It looks fairly 'pristine' and probably re-arranged slightly for better presentation (but only in the same way we generally try to present a landscape accurately but in favourable lighting conditions when possible). In terms of the ingredients and their texture, it looks authentic to me. I'm wondering though how he managed to get the burger from the restaurant to a studio set up before the cheese congealed! It looks reasonably fresh. Anyway, this is all just educated guesswork. I'd also be interested to know what manipulation (both digital and physical) took place to present the burger like this. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First off, I can't be the only one who feels uncomfortable looking this sandwich. Maybe its from watching Supersize Me one too many times. Also, I notice brown specks around the sandwich on the bottom left corner of it. Are they crumb bits or the sort? GamerPro64 22:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree that there is something (or things) off-putting about the photo, but it's hard to diagnose. I think part of it is the way the middle bun hangs downward and confuses the viewer's perspective, suggesting that the burger is much closer the camera/viewer than it actually was. Another factor that might contribute to the in-your-face quality of the picture is the very tight, front-and-center cropping. Just as an experiment, I uploaded an edit that expands the space around the burger by increasing canvas size 125%. I also moved the burger slightly downward in the hopes that this composition might feel more natural (see the many featured pictures of foodstuffs by User:Fir0002) Tokugawapants (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support alt - I've considered this several times, but ultimately I keep falling back to the idea that a good picture of food has some context (i.e. is not a cutout). Of our woefully underpopulated category, my favourite is easily File:Various grains.jpg. It is clear, well defined, yet also provides a little context. That being said, this is a very good shot of a Big Mac, and he must have had a friendly server to not get the mishmash I always end up with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I went back and made some minor edits to the picture. My editing has changed a lot since then, but I just did some minor cleanup. For those wondering about this picture, it's just a plain Big Mac that I picked up explicitly to photograph. I asked for the cheese to be separate, so I would be able to move stuff around on the burger. The cheese normally acts as glue that really prevents you from making it look good after you get it. To prep the Big Mac for photos, I just rearranged the contents so it was pulled toward the front edge. You do this so you can actually see the contents clearly, otherwise it gets buried by the bun. When it's set, I just add the cheese to it and shoot. Evan-Amos (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Very interesting, thanks for sharing. :) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Thank you! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't moving the ingredients towards the front artificially inflating the perceived size? ("The cheese normally acts as glue" [dreamy look] Mmmmmm, glue.) Belle (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably one of the reasons the image ended up here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. I'm not sure how you could put a Big Mac in its proper context. In it's cardboard box? Sitting on a McDonalds tray in a restaurant? Either way, you might have better context but you'd have a much poorer view of the Big Mac itself... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Half-eaten next to an overflowing bin in the street with a single sliced pickle next it being sniffed disdainfully by a stray dog. That's how I normally see them. Belle (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In the interests of encyclopaedic accuracy, do you suggest we investigate high street bins searching for the most authoritatively presented Big Mac we can find? ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  When I tried reproducing this (the results were nowhere near satisfactory, and I didn't go to the extent Evan did) I tried positioning the BM on top its box, with a white wall behind it. Perhaps not as colorfully contextual as a dumpster (*wink*), but it goes well with the impersonal McD persona. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support either, prefer alt. I think I'd have preferred a shadow, instead of a full cutout, but I reckon this'll do nicely. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support either Nice, especially since food is quite rarely nominated here. Brandmeister^talk 11:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt - While both images are pretty good in their own right, the alt comes off as less off putting to me. GamerPro64 15:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until clarified Is this a real Big Mac, or is it some form of "substitute" made to be photographed? I've never seen one looking like that (i.e. cleanly and well arranged) in any MacD place I've ordered one, anywhere in the world... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See the photographer's comments above. Belle (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I think myself and the nominator were the only ones who !voted before the clarification was made. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the photographer used only the real ingredients but strived to photograph it in an ideal state, rather than as typically prepared and served by a pimply-faced teenager who wishes he was somewhere else. I don't think that's necessarily any different to (to use another photographic example) going out and taking a photo of the most pristine flower or the butterfly with the least tattered wings, taking a photo of a landscape on a sunny day with blue sky as opposed to overcast and flat, or something like that. It's not misrepresenting reality necessarily, it's just trying to get the most aesthetic view of the subject. But whether that makes it representative, well that's a matter of debate. As photographers, I think we naturally lean towards aesthetics, but I can see both sides of this. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I share Diliff's worries, here. I'm not particularly keen on striving to display this in a positive way. J Milburn (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As opposed to...? Landscapes? Other products? A whopper (which, BTW, we really need a better picture of)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - There seems to be a kind of bias among a lot of commenters against attempting to display something which is 1) a commercial product and 2) generally regarded as distasteful in a professional light (which reflects positively on an object with a negative connotation). FP regularly prefers sites popular with tourists devoid of people, plants which in peak bloom and virgin condition, household products which look fresh out of the catalog, and many others. While I think this could be taken too far (look at how McDonalds photographs the Big Mac) this particular image strikes me as being along the same lines as many others which we have passed before - balancing between honesty and professional. As a follow-up, here's some featured salad. That's a lot nicer than I generally plate one, and probably a lot more aesthetic than when you do it, too (if it's not, by all means please have me over for dinner). But no one was terribly upset about that. 24.222.214.125 (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree, but I think I see where the problem is: the Big Mac is instantly recognizable as belonging to a particular entity, is still available for sale (and heavily promoted), and is synonymous with junk food. The first two make the commercial value of featuring such an image on par with a current video game, film, or TV series (i.e. conceivably affecting the company's bottom line), while the third is a matter of prejudice. That being said, I firmly believe that we should judge the image itself, in all cases, rather than any possible commercial/promotional effect. I mean, File:ULPower UL260i.jpg is straight from the company's advertising material, but there were no complaints when it was nominated. Reviewers let the image speak for itself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agreed also. I think it's necessary to leave ideology at the door when participating in FPC. Obviously we don't want to overtly support a company's product, but the image is a long way from anything that we would normally considered promotional. We've established that it's presented better than is normally the case by a worker at a McDonalds restaurant, but it's clearly not the kind of photo normally seen in advertising either and I cannot really conceive that McDonalds would benefit from, or indeed desire for us to feature an image of its signature burger in this manner. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 02:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support either, prefer alt. It's nicely done. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting sick just looking at it. Sca (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think the fact that it has been arranged in such a way as to make it appear more substantial makes it a poor representation of the subject (It's like a push-up bra for burgers) Belle (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'am, I believe this is the storage container you are looking for. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I want one; the only drawbacks for me are that I don't eat meat and already have the bra filled Belle (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it is a fair and reasonable depiction of a Big Mac. OK, so often they come out a bit more squashed than this, but you could say the same about a picture of a piece of fruit, or a flower, or whatever. Often the ones you buy or see are not as perfect as the pretty picture. The best ones are obviously going to be chosen to be photographed (normally). 109.147.185.178 (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like that things were pulled to the edge. To me an ideal pic would have a cross section view alongside the original unmodified one --Muhammad(talk) 08:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Muhammad above that a cross-sectional approach, as is regularly employed with fruit FPs, would probably be better at faithfully representing the subject. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note -- Well, I am not sure why the nomination is still not closed. I can see 6 support alt. and hence, just make it go. Armbrust, Adam Cuerden,Brandmeister, GamerPro64, Rreagan007 and Diliff crosses the threshold. But 4 opposes(when they say it, they say it to both) and Crisco have weak support of alt. That's 59% support (6.5/11), below par of 80% consensus. The herald 02:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --The herald 02:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough consensus The herald 02:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to close, especially a contested nomination like this one, you should probably be aware the consensus is in fact usually regarded as 2/3rds. In this case, the percentage is below in either case so to some extent it's a non-issue. But be cognizant of how the project is run. It was likely not closed promptly because it is rather close. 24.222.214.125 (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure with what you say. Are you saying that it must be considered as a close much before officially closing it? Then in that case, I don't think I am wrong. Neither consensus nor votes can pass this nomination and hence its better to be closed officially.. The herald 12:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that you should take time to review the closing rules before actually closing nominations. While the closure here is, in my opinion, correct not knowing what consensus for passing is (80% vs 66%) is a pretty major oversight. 24.222.214.125 (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]