Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lone Cypress Sunset

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

Lone Cypress at Sunset[edit]

The Lone Cypress near sunset. The Lone Cypress is the official symbol of Pebble Beach, California and a significant landmark on the scenic 17-Mile Drive just outside the city. The Drive is on the northern edge of California's Big Sur coast, an area of rugged cliffs and mountains over the Pacific Ocean.
Edit 1, resolution increased to 1280 x 1707 pixels. Lighting, I notice, is also a bit brighter.
Reason
Other images of the Lone Cypress that I have seen on Wikipedia don't have quite as good of lighting, in my opinion. In addition, the Lone Cypress is a cultural symbol of the Big Sur area of California and holds significant educational value.
Articles this image appears in
Cypress, 17-Mile Drive, Pebble Beach, California
Creator
Hersfold (talk/work)
  • Support as nominatorHersfold (talk/work) 03:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I don't believe a sunset is the best lighting for the Lone Cypress, since the lighting obscures some of the details. I personally prefer the lighting in Image:Lone cypress in 17-mile-drive.jpg. It's not as dramatic, but the details are easier to see. Also, the pic is a bit on the small side. I'm sure someone can go out there and take a high res shot. It's the most photographed tree in the world (at least according to the brochure I have somewhere), so it shouldn't be long before a high res pic is uploaded. Jumping cheese 07:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I just realized something...the pic was uploaded like yesterday by the nominator. Hersfold, can you upload the higher res version you surely have? I'll appreciate it. Also, I heard rumors that the Lone Cypress is copyrighted (or trademarked...not sure), thus the pic is some sort of copyright infringement. I did some Googling and the results suggest that it's not.[1] I can't be for sure though. Jumping cheese 07:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • As far as I understand copyright law, you have to copyright a specific image. A blanket copyright on an actual object doesn't work very well. Anyway, I'm working on the higher resolution now, and should have it soon. Hersfold (talk/work) 16:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC) (New image up now)
      • Well, you can copyright a sculpture, but not a tree (since copyright belongs to the creator, not the owner [no God jokes please]). They might restrict photographic rights on their property, but if so it should have been posted somewhere, and Hersfold I presume would have noticed. That's not a copyright issue anyway; it could get the photographer in trouble, but not WP for posting it. Chick Bowen 02:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
      • There wasn't any copyright notice - at least, none in a conspicuous location. I'm not the only one to have taken pictures of it, so I can't have simply missed it. Looking at Google Earth, there's pictures of this tree all up and down the coastline from Panoramio. Hersfold (talk/work) 03:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Lovely image; without the sunset the image wouldn't be half so eye-catching, I think, and eye-catching is in the definition of a FP. Adam Cuerden talk 14:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • weak oppose - lovely yes, nice light, but not very detailed, especially in the tree. Illustrates "Pebble beach" best among its articles, but the other articles not that well (by FP standards). Debivort 19:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Subject of the picture (the tree) isn't clear/detailed enough. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 00:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I would point out that it is impossible to get a more close-up shot of the tree itself, due to steep cliffs and fences preventing anyone from leaving the roadside without risking life, limb, and arrest for trespass. Hersfold (talk/work) 04:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • OpposeWell, a longer zoom would have got you closer, but that's not the problem. I like the lighting, trees usually do look better lit by a low sun and this shot is a good example. I really don't like the composition at all, which makes a bigger deal of the rock than the tree on it. I would much rather see a wider view (or a less-tight crop) with a better subject-oriented composition, but I'm also thinking an even later shot, with the sun just about to disappear, might have picked out the tree in the shot better than any other technique. mikaultalk 11:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - because it demonstrates the subject beautifully --Hadseys 11:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I like the composition, however at full size the tree is slightly blurry - enough to not be a FP. Zakolantern 17:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 06:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)