Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Weimaraner

Weimaraner[edit]

Weimaraner puppies at home dominating their owner

I, Christopher Erickson (aka User:Guðsþegn), took this photograph of my beloved Weimaraner puppies. In the article it helps communicate what is said in the section on temperament, particularly the Weimaraner's fast, powerful, playful, and energetic nature. One dog illustrates well the "silver ghost" moniker given to Weimaraners, and the other pictures the steely and striking stare that is so unique and characteristic about Weimaraners. I took the picture with a cell phone camera. It is less than the standard resolution, but I think that its other qualities (artful composition, striking content, etc.) make it a worthy featured pic.

Nominate and support. - GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 18:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low resolution and poor background. Ziggur 18:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the background is not beautiful, it does not take away from the subject, and it helps communicate the temperament of weimaraners, specifically their powerful and playful nature. The ceiling fan makes it clear that the photographer is looking up with the dogs standing over him (they were waking me up from sleep). GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 19:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I like the picture, but what I don't like is that there is too much movement. It would be best if the picture could be more steady, to show the playfullness of the dogs paat 19:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very small, isn't very grabbing. --light darkness^(talk) 20:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - i find the blurly image irritating. picture is not exceptional in any way.--Philopedia 21:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose to much movement and the resolution is too low. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Hopelessly too small, at 320 pixels. Left dog totally unsharp and overexposed. This is a snapshot, not a FP. --Janke | Talk 22:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's obviously not going to pass, but for the record that is not overexposure from any flash (it was a cell phone, duh), just natural light in from the window; and it's not "unsharpness" but movement (more of that Weim temperament) GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 22:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overexposure is overexposure no matter what causes it. Standards are high for FPC and as the photographer, you are ultimately in control of the environment so you can't just say "Oh, but I didn't use a flash, it isn't my fault". As for "unsharpness", movement is one of the things that CAUSES unsharpness, along with lack of focus. Janke was completely correct. You just have to be realistic. We're not saying that the photo contributes nothing to the article, but you need to appreciate the high standards set for a featured picture, and that this photo is simply not good enough according to a number of criteria. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Postage stamp size, highly distracting background, blown highlights, excessive blurring, noisy, compression artefacts.--Deglr6328 00:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose entirely too small. I'm sure the blur might have been intentional, but it is too much. Search 4 Lancer 02:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The intentional blur is a great artistic effect, but it doesn't belong in a featured picture in an encyclopedia. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 06:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose no chance, starting with the fact that it's tiny. chowells 13:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is this a joke? A picture taken by a cell phone as a FPC? Low resolution and very poor optics qualitiy makes most cell phone pictures unsuitable as FP. Glaurung 05:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarcastic insult has no place in votes for featured picture candidates while constructive criticism does. Guðsþegn obviously worked hard to take this photograph, and kicking away his effort as such will get him nowhere. — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 06:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excuse me for butting in, but I don't see the comment as "sarcastic". It is obvious the nominator is unfamiliar with the accepted criteria for FP, or he would not have nominated this. "Working hard" - that's a joke - it's a cellphone snapshot! Nice for dog lovers and thus for the article, but not a FPC in any conceivable way. Even the colors are weird, due to the cheap lens & CCD chip in the cellphone. Look at the archived FPs in full size and you'll understand - no offense intended. --Janke | Talk 07:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is exactly what I meant. The question is not about the subject of the picture, but the material used to make it. Camera on cell phones are very handy to take every day pictures as you always have it with you, but you have no chance of taking pictures with the quality standards of a FP. This is absolutely not an insult or sarcasms. If Guðsþegn has access to a better camera (which souldn't be too difficult. If he does not have one, I am sure he has some friends who do), he will be able to take a very nice picture of his Weimaraner puppies which could be nominated here. (Though I would recommand to find a better background). Oh, and one last thing about the Working hard term : as a dog owner, I do agree that you have to work quite hard to take nice photos. It is indeed not easy to have them stand still long enough, especially when they are young. Apparently this wasn't a concern here... Glaurung 12:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - One small point - I don't believe those dogs are staying very still. Strongly Oppose as per virtually everyone else. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξ φ 09:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It does not show the full body of the animal, extremely blurry pictures where detail is absent is useless wikipedia. You may love your dogs but I do not feel this is an appriopriate place for them to be.--Andeee 22:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough already. At this point it's just piling on. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 18:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, take it easy! We're not criticising you personally, we criticise the image and the techique by which is was created. FPC is a hard test, and it goes on for two weeks. In the past, other images have been shot down much more brutally than this. In fact, you can learn a lot on this page - it's a free course in photography! Take note of what is said, for and against any picture, and use what you learn to shoot better pictures in the future - yes, you may one day have a featured photo on WP! --Janke | Talk 20:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Bad background L e idi ot 03:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Try taking a bigger picture, and use a faster shutter speed to cut down on the blur. Covington 09:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I actually quite like the pic, if only it was bigger! Try again with a camera that isn't on a cellphone, but go for the same effect. (and for a cellphone pic it is good, all mine suck). --Midnighttonight 09:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose'. Blurry picture of special interst subject (I have birds.). David R. Ingham 06:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]