Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hay

Hay Field[edit]

My last photos of hay failed in its nomination, perhaps this one is better.

Support Self Nom --Fir0002 04:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does the sky colour change in the middle of the photo? --liquidGhoul 05:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was using a circular polariser and when I moved the camera panning, the polarizing effect of the sky was diminished --Fir0002 07:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Thats usually a no-no with wide angle lenses or panoramas. Probably shouldn't have been used in this case. It doesn't look good and takes away somewhat from the realism of the scene. A polariser CAN help to make a scene more balanced (to avoid a washed out sky) but only when it is even across the scene. Just my two cents. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Tecnically well stitched, great resolution, but - hey, it doesn't show the hay too well. Furthermore, I suspect the "curves" are more than somewhat exaggerated by the panoramic technique... My favorite pic on the hay page is the first: Bales_of_hay.jpg. If that one was of better quality, I might support a nomination of it. --Janke | Talk 08:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Cute, but I'm not entirely sure that it is the best picture to illustrate hay. enochlau (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it does, because it shows the bales, but more importantly it shows the recently mowed field and the edge of the field without mowing (thus showing what hay looks prior to being rolled into the bale) --Fir0002 04:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't believe that this picture is best for illustrating "hay", per se, but I do think that it is a wonderful panorama and it deserves to be acknowledged, maybe just not as the icon for hay.—Jared 13:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't 'deserve to be acknowledged'. According to the FP-Criteria, a featured picture must be 'Useful: Adds value to an article and helps complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not.' I don't see how this picture illustrates hay so particularly well. I agree it's a very nice photograph, but other criteria than technical quality and motive have to be considered when making something a featured picture. Mstroeck 14:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neutral. I guess that's true. I didn't realize that at the time. It is still a nice picture, though—even though it isn't the best—so I hereby change my vote. —Jared 14:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above --Fir0002 04:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because I'm not convinced it represents "hay" very well and because of the uneven sky and the strange tilt in the horizon. Mstroeck 14:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how those factors would affect the representation of "hay". They seem pretty much irrelevant to that. The strange "tilt" in the horizon is what's known as hills. --Fir0002 04:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They don't even have to affect the representation of hay at all. Featured pictures should be 'pleasing to the eye' and to me the entire picture is a turn-off. I'll change my vote to neutral if you at least fix the sky, but as it stands it's just a long way from your other pictures and most other FPs. BTW, I realize that it's a hill, but it still doesn't look good at all. It looks like lens distortion, especially in combination with the sky. Mstroeck 18:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, pretty but no encyclopedic value. --Dschwen 17:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. ~MDD 46 96 17:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The splotchy sky isn't a problem; it can be fixed in Photoshop. I like the feeling this image gives you of actually being in a hay field, but that's broken by the grass border at the bottom. I was also expecting to see more bales of hay in the field, but I haven't been in that many hay fields :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-6 03:50
Oppose. Very nice picture (and all your recent panoramas are charming by the way), but unfortunately with little encyclopedic value. Glaurung 07:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Enough encyclopedic value. It can illustrate hay and baler and the potential articles hay bale and hay field. The fact a lot of people know what it looks like, doesn't change that. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we ever have four distinct articles on those topics, I hope somebody will be bold enough to merge them ;-) It's a nice picture technically, but the GIF-animation on baler for example is way more relevant than this.Mstroeck 18:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Distortion in Panoramic photography.

Question for Fir, re. the caption of this photo: "Curves" in field made by baler - is that really so? To me, they look just like the curves you get with panoramic techniques (both rotary lens cameras, as well as stitching) - see this image. The horizon also bends typically. Is this hayfield on a hill? Please clarify if the field was actually as curved as seen in your panorama, or if the stitching has exaggerated the curving & hill. This is an encyclopedia, we should be very precise... --Janke | Talk 08:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The curves were originally there due to the fact that it is a hill, and thus the contours cause the cutting to be down in a curved fashion, this probably was enhanced by the stitching, but it is not unrealistic. --Fir0002 08:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's acomposite picture thus give some technical details. Ericd 19:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 04:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]