Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eiffel Tower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Eiffel Tower[edit]

Original - The Eiffel Tower in June, 2009, as seen from the champ de Mars, Paris, France.
Very high res image of an iconic architectural monument, pleasing composition, high EV.
Articles this image appears in
Eiffel Tower, Tower
Blieusong (Benh on Commons)
  • Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. I thought this had been nom'ed before, but it must have been at commons. Time3000 (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - is it just me, or is the image tilted slightly to the right? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Looks ok to me, but then i haven't exactly got 20/20 vision! If it is, maybe it's by a degree or two... Maybe a subtle nod by the builder to the tower in piza?! Oh, and support Gazhiley (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2009
      • I got that impression too, but having checked closer I'm almost certain it's not. I think it may be an optical illusion caused by the trees on the right being lower (and shadowy) than those on the left. It is ever so slightly off centre though, which is no biggie. --jjron (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)(UTC)
        • Having decided to read up on the tower out of sheer curiosity i find it actually states in the article that the tower moves in the sun so maybe that's also a poss reason for it to look not quite straight... Admitadely only by 18cm but that might give enough movement to show as a very tiny bit off straight... or maybe not... Gazhiley (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks pretty good to me. Existing FP for the record, which has been shunted to the Gallery in the Eiffel tower article. Regardless, they're sufficiently different, and this one has better EV. --jjron (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In case one cares, I'd like to say that I did not move that FP down to the gallery (I actually tried to move it back to leading picture once, but some people were concerned by the lack of sharpness). I wouldn't mind to have the existing FP moved back to top page, it is much more beautiful than this trivial shot, and the FP candidate a little bit farther down the page, as per the french version of the article. Blieusong (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Not that you were necessarily suggesting so anyway, but I wasn't accusing you of hiding away the existing FP; I noted before voting that you had replaced a similar low res photo with this one in the infobox. FWIW I think this is better in the infobox anyway than the existing FP - as I said in my vote, this has higher EV, and is attractive enough itself for that matter, however, regardless, EV does not necessarily equate with beauty, and we are an encyclopaedia. --jjron (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Good detail and composition, although the grass and sky noise has some strange artifacting. The sky could easily be fixed with a bit of noise reduction, but the grass is harder to fix. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This might come from downsampling method used. I'll try to upload another one tomorrow night. I also had a few sources pictures OOF because of defective AF, sadly :'(, which explains (slight) sharpness inconsistencies on this picture, as some may have spotted. Blieusong (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You should really pre-focus and shoot it in manual focus. :-) I don't always do that if I'm being lazy, but it's the safest method. 20:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I do that. But my lens front-focuses. This time, for an unknown-to-me reason, my pictures had ended up with sharp lower parts, and blurred upper parts (if I remember right) as if the focal plane rotated. Maybe that was because of my filter ? Fortunately, blending has eliminated most of the blurry parts, but not all of them. Blieusong (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As I don't want to spam wiki with multiples versions of a file, I've just sent you an email with a link to a new version of the photo. Could you please have a look at it and give me a feedback ? Thanks a lot. Blieusong (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Probably the best "vanilla" photo of the tower we have. — Jake Wartenberg 16:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - great photo, optical illusion and all. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm agree with above...--Sabri76'message 12:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose-Comment I find this picture well done composed, exposed, and done in general. The problem is just that it is completely uninteresting. Unless you can (magnifying it) see a person killing another among the tourists or something like that this is just another Eiffel tower picture. This topic is a really hard one. How to make an interesting Eiffel-tower picture that is interesting enough to be a FP? I myself wouldn't dare to touch this theme unless the muse of photography kisses me (an Zeus still has to give birth to such a muse) Sorry Frank cheValier on a Pc (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • That really isn't a valid reason to oppose based on the criteria though. Sure, there is always going to be the 'x-factor' that influences our votes based on whether the image moves us or not, but you shouldn't vote on a whim based on your own interest in the image, and nor should something extreme but incidental to the subject like a tourist murder justify it being an FPC either! The question that the FPC process essentially asks is: Does it illustrate the subject well and add to the viewer's understanding of the article in which it resides? It shouldn't matter if you find the subject boring or not. Not every viewer will share your apparent prejudice towards it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry for being extreme with the example of the tourist. The thing is that a good picture is not only a sharp color&light balanced picture. Far more important are the content and the presentation of the content. What the author is saying with the picture. Many renowned pictures have even technical defects. My point is that this image is in the album of any tourist owning a fairly good camera, a fairly good lens and a tripod. My point is. This image is not good because it is empty. Nothing is said, suggested, no elaboration on the topic is done by the author. I recon Eiffel's is not an easy topic to treat and this is not a fault of the author. Just as a point of comparison look at the second, 5th, 13rd and 14th in the Eiffel tower page. No spectacular event is happening but the authors took a time to make out of the picture a mental reflection of it. A lot (or at least some more) value is added to the topic through the active participation of the author. Something is said with the picture. Again I admit this is hard to do with this tower, because even these views are nowadays classic and known to many.  Franklin.vp  17:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I think part of the problem is that you've come here with a good understanding of photography generally speaking, but without having spent much time (I assume anyway - perhaps you've been lurking) to observe what the project looks for and what it values in its images. All of what you say is fairly true in the context of critiquing a photo for an audience of photographers, or indeed anyone who appreciates good photography, but what makes a compelling photo to them is not necessarily what makes a photo compelling in the encyclopaedic sense. An encyclopaedic photo shouldn't try to suggest anything. Everything that it illustrates should be as straight-forward and obvious - for the same reason, flowery prose is discouraged in articles. Good aesthetics in an image is a bonus, of course, but sometimes creative photography is to the detriment of encylopaedic value. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
          • I see. Got convinced then. I go silent now and add my Support as well.  Franklin.vp  03:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Per diliff I think quality encyclopaedic illustrations should be priority number one. Images with "wow" do help make articles more compelling though. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry if my example disguised my point it is not the lack of wow-effect what I'm claiming. Read my comment above, please.  Franklin.vp  17:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Great, crystal clear image of the tower. --TorsodogTalk 19:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Promoted File:Tour Eiffel Wikimedia Commons.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 19:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)