Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/MV Queenscliff

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

MV Queenscliff

edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2010 at 18:22:32 (UTC)

 
Original - The MV Queenscliff pulling into dock at Queenscliff, one of the two Peninsula Searoad Transport Ferries operating between Queenscliff and Sorrento, in Victoria, Australia in 2010. The MV Queenscliff has operated on this run since December 1993 and can carry approximately 80 vehicles and 700 passengers.
 
Edit - Curves
 
Edit - cloned out light pole in foreground, small craft at top left, and slightly reduced brightness by Bydand
 
Circled what I called the 'wierd docks', so reviewers understand what I am talking about. —Wackywace
Reason
High res, high quality, excellent detail and clarity on the ferry, compares favourably to related existing FPs.
Articles in which this image appears
MV Queenscliff (1992), Peninsula Searoad Transport
FP category for this image
Probably Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Machinery
Creator
jjron
  • Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (original) Once gain, this is one of those images where the exposure and post-processing was done in a way to keep the highlights from blowing out. But this was at the expense of the rest of the planet behind the ship, which no longer looks like daylight and looks more like a total solar eclipse approaching (which I have personally experienced). Even the couple on the starboard side just underneath the pilothouse are too dark, as are the four on the port side at the very front; and all six people are in direct sunlight. I don’t like the looks of this one at all and don’t think this is an excellent example of photography. This is not how this image would appear to the naked, day-adapted eye; it would simply blow out the highlights too. Greg L (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit Probably a bit of quantisation noise but it looks fine. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support original At preview it looks too dark, but at full size it doesn't look too bad, the opposite of what we're used to seeing. The lighting in edit is overblown. --I'ḏ♥One 00:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find the edit to be much improved and I think we’re largely past the brightness issue. I’m still noodling as to whether I think (IMHO) the image is FP. Greg L (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The light pole in the forground, the small craft in the top left of the image, the docks in the bottom right of the image and the wierd docks that blend into the water to the left of the image are all very distracting from the boat. WackyWace converse | contribs 18:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, got to agree with Wackywace here. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lol, at least Greg tries to give a genuine reason. Docks on the left - wtf? The speedboat off in the distance is 'very distracting' - yeah, sure. What a joke. I usually try to avoid commenting on !votes on my noms, but that's getting beyond stupid. --jjron (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the docks are distracting, since the image is of the Queenscliff docking! -- bydand•talk 04:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • My issues could just generally fall under the banner of "compositional problems". I've seen some great photographs of ships, but this one's not quite there for me. The light pole and the band of sky are both not quite working for me. A quick Google of the first ship of this sort that came to mind revealed this, for instance, which is far better, compositionally, to my eyes. J Milburn (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you not seeing what I'm trying to say? It goes without saying that this is a great shot for the article, but a shot of this sort could, I feel, be better. I don't look at this and think "featured picture". J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen the edit- I'm concerned that there may be an inappropriate amount of manipulation. I'm thinking about it. By "band of sky", I mean the thin line of sky visible at the top of the image. I do not think it looks great. J Milburn (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added another alternative. I cloned out the pole and the craft in the background (go easy on me, I'm still pretty new to photoshop!), and I slightly reduced the brightness. I do agree that the first edit is a bit too bright. -- bydand•talk 04:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support the second edit (mine). If this isn't FP standard it is definitely VP standard, but I feel it is just FP standard. -- bydand•talk 17:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (all versions) I understand that this is a ferry. But I note that the very, very first thing tourists who take cruises, when they get off the boat at their first port and climb up the hill to watch their wives buy overpriced Tee shirts at the open-air market a thousand feet away is turn around and take a picture of their boat from these sort of vantage points. This composition looks just like those, except it’s a small ferry. Moreover, this picture is suffering from the classic tug-of-war between making it look similar to what the eye would really see and the objections of our regular FPC denizens who faint straight away upon seeing highlights that are “blown out.” I’m just not seeing that our visiting I.P. readership will find that this picture is in any way stunning or eye-catching, nor do I think the subject matter (a ferry) is all that interesting. The bottom line is I think too few readers will stop, stare & click. Greg L (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I come from a place that is so proud of its ferry fleet that the Department of Transportation has a flickr account.[1] I have never seen a ferry like this except for on TV so being able to click on it and look at detail was cool. Can't comment on the other stuff though.
  • Support any Good EV, good quality and a pleasant image in general.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I figure if Greg L is allowed to Oppose twice, then I'm allowed to Support twice. --jjron (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recalled my original post to be a comment, but I must have been thinking of another nomination. I took the liberty of striking your double vote as your point is taken and I have corrected my double vote. I’ve revised my comment/votes so the first post, which referred only to the original I found to be way too dark, is now clarified and struck. My second post is now the standing vote and I revised it too in order to clarify that it applies to all four versions for the broad reasons stated. 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support 2nd edit (the one with the cloned out light and background boat) Nicely shot picture of a modern miracle (something that big floating?!!) Gazhiley (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/MV_Queenscliff&oldid=1145620928"