Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lido Isle, Newport Beach

Lido Isle, Newport Beach, California

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2015 at 18:30:55 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality scan of island; aerial photo taken close enough to show details and its location near the ocean.
Articles in which this image appears: Lido Isle, Newport Beach, Newport Beach, California
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places
Creator: WPPilot

Support as nominator – CorinneSD (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Oddly skewed buildings, unreal colours, horrible close-up quality. Sorry, I don't think this makes the grade. 31.51.2.19 (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I still don't see why you need F/16. At that distance, F/8 should provide plenty of DOF, with less diffraction and a faster shutter speed (and thus you can lose some of the ISO; ISO 200 would be useable, or ISO 100. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: I did not bracket this shot, I regret. I have programmed a number of configurations to my "bracketing" program on the Nikon. The real issue is the craft is moving at 100mph away from the subject and IMHO I over saturated the colors in vibrancy in post here. Corinne is new to this process, and lets all try to assist the user in developing the eye needed to make successful nominations, it is in the best interest of everyone to assist new participants, like CorinneSD. Just my 2 cents. talk→ WPPilot 03:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your shutter speed would be a lot easier to manage at a lower F number. F8 would give you much more room to play with, and at that distance (20 miles? 30 miles?) depth of field won't be a problem. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am at a altitude of 2500 feet, and perhaps 3 miles at most from the subject. This shot is on the inbound leg landing on runway 20 Right at KSNA airport, in addition I would be traveling at a decent rate of about 500 feet per minute and flying at 120 MPH, away from the subject at this time of the flight talk→ WPPilot 06:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think speed affects aperture. If you need 1/1000 (or 1/2000), something like f/8 would allow you to get it with a lower ISO and thus less noise. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not quite sure where Corinne got the "Good quality scan of island; aerial photo taken close enough to show details..." bit from - as per 31.51 it's badly tilted, really horrible close up, and certainly not able to view any details... Sorry WPPilot, nothing personal, but I've seen a lot better stuff from you - this is not good enough for FP... gazhiley 12:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am used to the ramblings here and it is great to hear from the critics. It would be personal if anyone else here had the ability to contribute aerial photos, but retouching paintings that were done centuries ago seems to be more popular in the FP section only features real (dead) artists work as retouched by computer experts so I do not take it personally this process has created a thick skin, so to speak. Why are IP editors voting here btw??? talk→ WPPilot 02:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think it is particularly easy to get the ground absolutely level when one is taking a photo from a low-flying airplane and piloting the airplane at the same time. I'm not an expert in photos as a lot of you are, but I don't understand not being able to view any details. One can see individual boats way out on the ocean, many small boats in the little harbor, and individual houses. CorinneSD (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@CorinneSD: As you see a IP editor has started a thread and others have chimed in, on the IP editors thread. You are entirely correct regarding detail, and once you remove the IP editor (who made a total of 4 contribs) that leaves two respected editors, whom I do have a great deal of respect for and there comments. IMHO, as this was our first nomination it is ok and, as you have seen already, I respond by adding another photo. Corinne, this is a process that changes with the wind really, please continue to nominate photos you like, mine or otherwise as we truly need more photos to be featured in the featured photo section. Thank you for your support. talk→ WPPilot 03:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original I wanted to abstain for a moment and see what the others had to say. While I did take both of these shots. The saturation/vibrancy could be toned down a bit, but I am supporting the nomination. talk→ WPPilot 06:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Not FP material. I will echo the two respected editors, Crisco 1492 and gazhiley. Fylbecatulous talk 16:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]