Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/broadway tower

Broadway Tower, Cotswolds.

Broadway Tower is a folly located at one of the highest points (1,024 feet above sea level) of the Cotswolds, England. On a day of clear weather, thirteen counties of England can be seen from the top of the tower.

Edit 1 by Arad - Removed the red dot on the window and also those white distracting spots

Edit 2 by Yummifruitbat - The edit that this image actually needed, cropped the bloke wandering off the edge of the frame

Edit 3 - Also removed one of the tourist and the flags and red light.

File:Broadway tower Edit4.jpg

Edit 4 - people edited off but kept width, and removed dead grass to right.

Reason

I feel that the image is quite striking and is an accurate and detailed depiction of the tower.

Articles this image appears in

Broadway_Tower

Creator

Newton2 (Myself)

• Support as nominator — Newton2 10:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support woa. Everything is nice to me on this picture. The people to the left help to have an idea of the size. Perhaps I would have loved to have a very bit more sky above, but this is just me. Blieusong 10:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edit2 the crop does it. I added this to the nominations for FP candidate on commons (next to arad's edit nomination). Blieusong 20:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support In this cases, the two tourists in the pic actually adds to the pic. I like how the tower seems to stick out of nowhere. Very sharp and imposing. Encyclopedic pic. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 10:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Here are some photoshopping ideas: remove both the tourists, the red light in the window, the "flag", the dead grass, and while you're at it...the entire tower itself. The resulting pic will be a good illustration of a grassy field on a clear day. ;) I'm actually wondering if someone can actually convincingly pull that off...since the tourists, red light, and "flag" were all removed without any tell-tale signs. It'll be a good example on the photo editing page. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Better yet, replace the tower with the Tower Bridge. =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Support Excellent colours, sharpness etc. Really good pic --Fir0002 11:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Edit 1 Edit 2 or 3 Nice. ^8thstar 12:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 2. Beautiful, and wonderful composition. I also think it has an excellent caption. Pstuart84 Talk 13:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • and strong oppose edit 1 per Dschwen on the grounds that manipulation should affect the capturing of the image, not the subject Pstuart84 Talk 15:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    • And I don't think the subject is changed in anyway. --Arad 16:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Info Edit 1 - I took the freedom to upload the thit and the original on Commons for more access to all projects. Also, about the edit 1, I removed the red dot and white spots from the castle which I found distracting on this beautiful image. --Arad 13:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1 or 3 - Per all above. --Arad 13:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Edit 2 - It's too tight the crop for me. And the white and red spots are distracting --Arad 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Too tight? Cropping the man only reduced the total width of the image by 3.5%, on the opposite side from the actual subject. That seems a strange basis for an oppose. --YFB ¿ 21:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Edit 1 or 3; normally, the tourists would be distracting, but in this they add useful scale and a sense of wonder. Also, generally beautiful pic. --Golbez 13:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• What's the point of removing the flag and the light in the window? --Dschwen 13:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think I said it before. They are very distracting IMO. --Arad 13:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you feel you could improve a candidate by image editing, please feel free to do so. What does a complete white flag add to the image or a blown out light? I did what I thought would help the image, If it didn't help, then there is always an original to vote for. I wanted the image to be perfect (it's already good) for FP. ;-) --Arad 14:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is probably semantics, but it looks to me that you edited the subject not the picture. It is ok to compensate for technical shortcomings, but (and I know, we had that discussion, sorry) manipulating the subject, because it is not to your liking I finds questionable for encyclopedic illustrations... --Dschwen 15:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• IDK how i changed the subject? Those white flags didn't add anything informative to the image. Did they? --Arad 16:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, they're not white flags, they're guttering. Secondly, however unpleasant you might find them, they are a material part of the subject, not an incidental element in the surrounding scenery. This is an encyclopedia and we shouldn't post up anything which isn't materially and verifiably acurate. FWIW, I would personally crop out the figure in the left to up the drama a little more, but Support the original version as is. (changed support to edit 2 below) mikaul^talk 17:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As a note I do have a version of the image without any people in at all but I think that having the people adds to the image as it gives you a sense of scale. --Newton2 17:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No! It's just great the way it is! Maybe have a look at cropping out that person doing an 'exit stage left', but as it is it's a great 'chance' shot, I love it mikaul^talk 17:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for your support! Yes I know what you mean about the person exiting the shot. Still if needs be they can always be cropped out as you say. --Newton2 17:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No way. The humans must stay! :-) I just have a question from Newton2. What do you think about the edit? --Arad 17:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind either way really. I agree that the bright white object is quite noticeable but on the other hand I can also accept the point which others have made about only editing to correct technical faults etc. Again, although the white object is fairly obvious I don't think it detracts from the overall photo too much. --Newton2 18:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the cloning out of the guttering and interior light is unnecessary and reduces the enc. There's another, less obvious gutter spout on the opposite tower so removing the right-hand one falsely implies asymmetry. The interior light indicates (albeit subtly) that the Tower is in use. --YFB ¿ 21:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it does improve the enc. Because as it seems, people may believe that someone is living in there. But it's only for tourism. --Arad 22:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. You appear to have equated "in use" with "lived in" in my comment - the presence of an electric light in no way implies inhabitation, but it does show that the building isn't derelict or permanently locked up. How can removing something which was present when the photograph was taken and an integral part of the subject improve the enc? The logic of that statement is seriously flawed. --YFB ¿ 22:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's better that you try be a bit more civil and comment on the photo not the person who comments. And AGF. In any way, those are distracting and I like it without them. You can do whatever you want, but that's how it is. --Arad 22:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please point out where I have been uncivil, made a comment about a contributor or failed to assume good faith. I resent being accused of any of those things just because I have disagreed with your edits. --YFB ¿ 22:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support edit 01 - amazing pic. Well done. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2 only - Lovely shot. I've uploaded the edit that it was crying out for, removing the bloke wandering off to the left. I think this improves the composition immeasurably without diminishing the enc provided by the other person as a scale reference. I also took the liberty of moving the edit to the Commons - Newton2, if you're happy to licence your contributions under CC licences as you have here, then your work can benefit all Wikimedia projects if you put it on Commons instead of uploading direct to Wikipedia. --YFB ¿ 18:49, 14 April 007 (UTC)

• No I don't mind the image being uploaded to commons with CC licence. --Newton2 19:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• support edit2 / strong oppose versions with gutter 'shopped out. Debivort 19:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Original, although if the consensus goes against me, then I'll support Edit 2. My problem with Edit 2 is that the woman isn't actually a good comparison for scale, as she's standing on the other side of the hill, down the slope a foot or two, so she's taller than she appears in the picture. You can actually see the guy's legs. Admittedly, this is a pretty minor quibble, but I also kinda like the "exit stage right" composition with the guy walking off. My first reaction when seeing this picture was "Oh, that can't be real"; but it is, so it's fantastic! Enuja 20:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think it's pretty easy to visually interpolate the height of the woman without needing to see her feet. The difference to the proportion that results from the lower 8 inches or so of her being obscured is negligible when the comparison is this stark. Nonetheless you're perfectly entitled to hold a different opinion. Thanks for noting that you'd support an alternative consensus, that's a helpful attitude to take and makes closure decisions easier. --YFB ¿ 21:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support edit 2 only (for reasons stated above) although I'd support the original if it came to it, but oppose all other edits for enc reasons (also stated above) mikaul^talk 22:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2, Super strong oppose Edits 1,3, and 4. See above. --Dschwen 08:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I want a tower like that. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose all The subject has a sense of scale built in, the windows and doors. The people serve no purpose and deminish the ENC composition. If I wanted to sell this picture I might leave them in for atristic value but they dont belong in the artical. also, there seems to be some tilt that isn't from perspective distortion. Edit out all the people for some support. -Fcb981 23:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You're opposing because there are people in the shot? Apart from pure aesthetics there is clearly a need for some scale reference; doors and windows come in a huge range of sizes and the building's imposing presence is clearly illustrated by the figure in the frame. I don't think the image as it is needs any more support than it already has. mikaul^talk 00:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• you know what else come in a wide range of sizes... People. To a much greater extent than doors and windows. The people are not needed as a sense of scale. end of story. Also, if the image has enough support as is, why do you care how I vote? -Fcb981 02:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You can vote how you like, but I don't think the incentive of your support is enough to edit out all of the people in the shot, that's all. No need to get personal. Thanks entirely to the figure(s) in the frame, I can tell that the windows in this shot vary between one and twelve feet in height. You must know some really weird people ;o) mikaul^talk 12:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Edit 3 Perhaps, however, can someone make a version without the man or the light but with the flag/guttering?--HereToHelp 23:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

- this is getting silly... mikaul^talk 00:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• • It shouldn't have to be silly, its not one of the best pictures, why spend so much 'sillyness' fixing it. -Fcb981 02:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• I have added yet another edit (sorry) so that people can see what it is like without the people in it. I myself am not sure about the people, having the woman does give some perspective but then without any of them there is less distraction. I also edited off the dead grass on the right, below the tower. Chris_huh^talk 15:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already mentioned that I do have another capture without the people in. However, the general consensus seems to be that the people are not detriment to the overall composition. --Newton2 17:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support edit 2 or 3. Entheta 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 3 everything in the photo is great, clouds looks ace the building itself is nice as is the sade cast upon it --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support original The original is already good enough in my opinion. Furthermore, I've said numerous times before that I think some people are too fast with editing minor things out, but of course everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion and should make edits if he/she likes to. I still disagree though. -Wutschwlllm 21:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support Edit 4; neutral to all others Who needs red lights, tourists, or dead grass in this stunning picture? Great quality. Removing everything else focuses your attention on the building itself. Edit 4 definitely should be promoted. However, I would be happy if any of them were promoted. -Powerfulmind ^please_talk^to_me! ^look_at^all_of^my_edits! 01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 25% comment, 75% signature, tsts. --Dschwen 09:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support edits 2 and 3 and support others. The people need to be in there for scale; looking at edit four the Tower doesn't seem so grand. However, I particularly like that edit four removed the dead grass in the corner. Amphy 02:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• I think having the woman in helps with scale, but the half cut-off, walking out-of-frame guy could be cut off (or cloned out). The bit of white guttering and the red light are not really a problem (although i see nothing wrong with taking out the red light) but the most distracting thing is the dead grass, so removing the dead grass and the man would be best, i think. Chris_huh^talk 10:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I like the "half cut-off, walking out-of-frame guy". I like the "dead grass" too. All that gives the picture much more "depth". -Wutschwlllm 21:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: we desperately need to get a policy on digital manipulation. I find this whole nomination with three manipulated edits rather troublesome. And it worries me even more that people are just discussing what else to remove or retouch instead of realizing that this project is about creating an encyclopedia and not a tourist brochure or pretty fantasy world scrap book! --Dschwen 11:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I couldn't agree more. -Wutschwlllm 21:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Loooong discussion on the subject at FPC talk. Hyper-cloning is certialy worth a mention there. mikaul^talk 23:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2, Strong Oppose other edits. The light, guttering, and dead grass are part of the subject. Punctured Bicycle 02:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Broadway tower edit.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 09:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)