Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Camels at Giza

Camels of Giza

Original - A photograph taken of three camels at the Pyramids of Giza

Reason: I found that this picture not only captured my interest, it also evoked my emotions. I was led to wonder: who is the man shown in the photograph? Where is he going? What has caught his attention? And what of the camels? The picture asks many questions, and it gives few answers. The quality of the image is good, and the colours provide a gentle contrast in the barren and arid surroundings. For these reasons, I believe that this image could become a feature image.

Edit 1 - non destructive noise reduction to reduce the color splotches (chroma noise) that ruined the original

Articles this image appears in: Camel; Dromedary
Creator: Jordan Busson

Support as nominator J.T Pearson (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Original - Strongly Oppose Edit, It raises many questions alright, such as why this should be a FP? On a technical level, the image is very soft, has a a very high amount of noise and compression artifacts had a distracting background and is taken from an uncomfortable viewpoint (a little too high). Furthermore, according to the image history, it appears to have being interpolated (made larger) and it does not add considerably to the article in which it is used. I do not believe this meets enough FP criteria. The edit is shocking with a high level of digital artifacts and very soft along with exasperated exposure flaws. Capital photographer (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's very noisy, disorients the colour of the middle camel. Plus if my memory serves me right, there's already an FP for camels? Dengero (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone would care to redress the problems? Any improvements would be appreciated. J.T Pearson (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I have personally contributed a couple of partially improved images. But those had one or two issues. This one has too many technical flaws, much less issues of composition, there is no way to correct them, certainly not without excessive digital alteration. Capital photographer (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Terrible quality. crassic!^[talk] 17:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in answer to your questions, the man hires out camels to tourists, he is heading towards the buses and he has just spotted a punter. However I do not think the picture deserves the sort of knocking it is getting here. It adds considerably to the articles showing working camels in the desert as they are normally dressed up. The only other such picture in the camel article is imho vastly inferior. The viewpoint is absolutely correct because with dunes in the desert (and I know this is Giza) this is the sort of view you get. The subject is well placed within the frame and well structured as a whole. The main issue that I see is the way the head of camel two is lost in camel one. If there was a contrast the picture could have an interesting depth which might raise the status enough Motmit (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a snapshot with poor composition and technical quality taken from an unpleasant height that gives it no context. It may be better than the sole competitor you've found, but still not up to FP standards (namely, criteria 1, 3 and 5). Capital photographer (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cor! You talking to me? That was comment, not support for FP! (Furthermore I wouldn't put any of my Camel-shots in for FP nor stick them in an article that's covered) Motmit (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It may be labelled a comment but it goes through tvarious FP criteria and states why the image meets them so I would take it as a supportive comment to which I replied why it doesn't. Capital photographer (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not quite the quality of an FP. Spencer^T♦^C 19:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]