Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/September 2006

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Image:Eiffeltornet.JPG - not featured

  • Info: created by Moralist - uploaded by Moralist - nominated by Moralist
  •  Support --Moralist 20:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support great photo..no matter of the quite low resolution --AngMoKio 00:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - low res, not very special, too much sky - MPF 02:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose — too much sky and point of view is not informative. Indon 02:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - bad composition - too much sky, as previously told, and weird perspective. Pko 09:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I like the perspective but nothing else. Technical quality and composition are bad. Roger McLassus 10:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't even like the perspective. --Digon3 12:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Confusing angle. --Lhademmor 14:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I like the perspective (it is different, and I have seen enough "standard" photos of the Eiffel tower for a lifetime), but it is too low res and there is too much bleached-out sky for me to support it. --Fastfission 19:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose where are the clouds? --Queryzo 12:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Neutral -- totally agree with Fastfission! -- Boereck 09:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
2 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 05:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Eilean donan castle2.JPG - not featured

 ::

  • Info: created by Moralist - uploaded by Moralist - nominated by Moralist
  •  Support --Moralist 19:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support - Inclined to support, despite rather low res, as the pic is so nice - MPF 02:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too low res for FP, and not everybody knows Britain (Scotland) well enough to situate this castle, so some more info would be welcome. Otherwise nice and unusual view of the castle. -- Lycaon 06:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    •  Comment Now I have got more geographical info, and also some other info about the picture.Moralist 18:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
      • This castle probably is the most visited castle by tourists, apart from the castle in Edinburgh. Tbc 19:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice point of view, but the technical quality is too low for FP status and the picture is leaning to the left. Roger McLassus 10:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with Lycaon --Digon3 12:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support At first I thought it was a painting, somewhat overromanticised, but still nice. Only in full view did I see that it is a photograph. Nice! The twigs at the top left could be removed. And the colour of the sky is somewhat overdone, but if it supposed to emphasise the painting-notion it is spot-on. Something similar goes for the green. Oh, and it is tilted. That might emphasise the old-ness (it's about to fall apart) but somehow doesn't work. For the rest, I love it. DirkvdM 17:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support The composition is very 19th-century, but I like a creative anachronism every now and then. Ack MPF. QuartierLatin1968 19:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose leaning to left --Queryzo 12:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support -- this pic says "castle" for me - the lean is a bit disturbing, you should fix that :-) -- Boereck 09:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 Comment I have uploaded a new image, that don't lean. If I tried to get it more straight it leaned the other way, so it is as straight as I could get it.Moralist 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
5 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 05:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cat.jpg - not featured

  • Info: created by Traroth (I think) - uploaded by Traroth - nominated by Neo2000
  •  Support --Neo2000 11:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Its a cat. Not only is it just a cat, but its legs are not in the picture. And its just making the same expression that any other cat can make. Maybe if you had the full cat in there I would vote differently. --Digon3 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose just another roadkill ;-) -- Lycaon 16:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - ditto to Lycaon - MPF 02:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately cats killed by traffic are anything but unusual - and the quality of this picture is not outstanding either. Roger McLassus 10:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it actully roadkill??? Doesn't look like it. It looks like its just being lazy and yawning --Digon3 12:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - pr. everyone else. Funny picture (provided it's not a roadkill), but not featured picture. --Lhademmor 14:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it actully roadkill??? --Digon3 16:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Digon3. --Javierme 22:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  OpposeOne more cat--Hi-tacks 16:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Picture like many others. Erina 22:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Verbas 12:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with Digon3 Tbc 19:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not good quality picture and the subject is poor. Declic 18:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Day 7: 1 support (nominator), 11 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 21:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cape Disappointment1.jpg

  • Info: created by (Digon3) - uploaded by Digon3 - nominated by Sunshade1
  •  Support another good picture by digon, like this photo because of the sky, nice contrast --Sunshade1 15:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose boring picture Lycaon 07:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose rather drab. Which Cape Disappointment? - I presume from the Picea sitchensis at the right, the one at the mouth of the Columbia River, but the pic really ought to say - MPF 02:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In addition to being boring this picture is considerably leaning to the right. Roger McLassus 10:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This photo was intended to be just informational. I didn't take this picture for beauty, just to show a lighthouse. It should not be featured. --Digon3 12:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Innsbrucklarge.jpg - featured

Innsbruck by Night.

  • Info: created by Know_Nothing - uploaded by Know_Nothing - nominated by Dagonator
  •  Support Cool Night Shoot
  •  Support --Luc Viatour 07:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support Balanced picture, very nice, but is it valuable? --Digon3 13:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support--AngMoKio 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support --XN 16:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Neutral - depends on how it is viewed. As a thumbnail it doesn't look special. To see how nice it is (the streets, the mountain ridge) you have to view it at a low resolution (ie big). So this is sort of a conditional support, but there is no template for that. :) DirkvdM 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    In this case you should support the picture, since only full resolution counts. Roger McLassus 21:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't get what you mean to say. I use the word 'resolution' in the sense of 'pixels per cm' (or 'dpi' or whatever), which I beleive is the original and correct sense. A bit confusing this ambiguous terminology. Anyway, what I meant is that that the picture only works when viewed big, not in the size that is normal for Wikipedia (and most other websites). Full-screen it is beautiful, though. DirkvdM 09:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The term "full resolution" means that every pixel of the screen corresponds to exactly one pixel of the picture. You can judge the value of a picture only when seeing it this way. Even the best picture can look bad when compressed to a thumbnail. The suitability of a photograph for Wikipedia is not of primary importance in the Commons, and even the featured picture discussions in the Wikipedia (the English or German one) never refers to the quality of thumbnails, since it always only takes one mouse-click to get the whole picture. Roger McLassus 10:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not a thumbnail. It's about the size pictures will mostly be shown on the Internet. DirkvdM 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support Very cool in full resolution -- Lerdsuwa 16:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - sorry, streetlight pics don't do anything for me - MPF 02:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice, very nice night shot! --Sam67fr 15:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice pic--Hi-tacks 16:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice. --Erina 22:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a quite nice pic, because the best side of innsbruck. --umgc_Yoda 16:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 20:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Evening at Dodwell-Rixon Pass.jpg - not featured

  • Info: created by Nathan La Porte - uploaded by Nlaporte - nominated by Nlaporte
  •  Support --Nlaporte 06:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice panorama, but not that interesting. Maybe if the sun reflected off the snow(making it orange glow)? --Digon3 13:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - fairly nice, but the sky is just a bit too cramped. I suppose the Sun made it difficult to avoid that but was at the same time needed for the contrasts in the snow, but knowing that doesn't help. DirkvdM 17:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sky is cropped too niggardly, and the photographer forgot the white balance before taking the picture. Roger McLassus 21:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support I like panoramas and that one is very nice --Queryzo 12:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose — I like panoramas too, but not this one. White balance is not properly set. Indon 14:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
2 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wfm area51 map en.png - not featured

  • Info: created by User:Finlay McWalter - uploaded by User:Finlay McWalter - nominated by Gnangarra
  •  Support The map was nominated and promoted as Commons:Quality Images, This map is exceptional and deserves to be FP --Gnangarra 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose it doesn't cover that big of an area. All it shows is 3 military bases. Not interesting to me. --15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC) by Sunshade1 - Roger McLassus 22:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - it's a map. Very useful, but so is a car (see below). DirkvdM 17:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support This map is very well done. I cannot see any reason for not featuring it. Roger McLassus 22:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose All it shows is 3 military bases, well done, but not that big an area. Oppose unless someone can convince me otherwise --Digon3 01:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support To DirkvdM: We've had maps (and diagrams) as featured pictures before. Truth is, FP should probably include a lot more useful, informative, and well-crafted maps like this, and a lot fewer insects and sunsets. To Sunshade1: It shows a lot more than 3 military bases! I can see you've never drawn a map for Wikipedia before. We've got county and state boundaries, topographic features, roads, cities and towns, a locator map, a detailed legend, a scale... The map is very easy to read and nicely laid out. And as for interest – well, it would be of interest if only for Area 51 alone. This is a major arena of US federal government activity. The only thing I don't see on here is a compass rose; otherwise this is a Cadillac-class map. QuartierLatin1968 02:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
comment Something I didnt mention earlier because I didnt know at the time of nomination is its Featured on en.Wikipedia. The reasoning behind nominating this map compared to many others is this one has such a significantly detailed legend/key. The description on the image page explains why certain details are there and other information is omitted. Gnangarra 07:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
If it is a good example of how a map should be made, which can be used by others as a template to make more maps, then I would agree. But the legend isn't very detailed at all. Most )commercial) maps show many more features. The reason is there aren't that many features in that area (despite the size). A map of a place that has many differnt landscapes in a limited area, would make more sense, such as is the case for many areas in New Zealand, for example. DirkvdM 10:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Just so I understand you right, you don't believe that any map of this region could be FP quality, because "there aren't that many features in that area"? QuartierLatin1968 00:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
But this isnt a map of topographical features its a map showing military facilities, and associated civillian area. I'm sure NZ doesnt have such an expanse of military facilities. Even if it does they arent where near as notiable as the Mythical area 51. Gnangarra 10:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how that area is mythical (does anyone?) and the map doesn't clarify that either, so that doesn't count. I admit I don't have any experience in mapmaking, so I'm not sure if I should judge maps. Then again, is it only meant for the incrowd or as a pat on the back for the effort? What I meant to say was that one reason a map could qualify as special is that it shows many aspects of map making. But the area is too boring to qualify for that. The presence of a military area is not that special and size doesn't matter. However, it does have Death Valley on it. One of the few areas in the world that are below sea level. But the map doesn't reveal that. The height is indicated, but not quantified in the legend. So the map shows two special features but doesnt reveal that. Big oops. Bad map. DirkvdM 17:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I just did a survey on the ref desk and it seems the area is quite well known outside the US. DirkvdM 06:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Legend letter size is quite small. Legend could be added as text outside the image. --Javierme 15:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support It's Area 51, US top secret millitary area for those who doesn't know it. -- Lerdsuwa
  •  Oppose - no contours, altitudes, etc. - MPF 02:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support - It's a very nice map, very well done. Very useful for articles on this region. It would be nice if the SVG was available, though I know that the background bitmap wouldn't travel well with it. --Fastfission 19:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Neutral -- It would be useful if the alleged flying saucers were shown;) MartinD 11:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Good design, but again SVG would be the suited format. The shaded relief map could be embedded as a bitmap into the SVG, all other elements are probably vectorbased anyway. This is commons, think about translations people! --Dschwen 13:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not so bad, but should be SVG, this way it's badly editable. --Leclerc 15:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support -- I think it is an informative piece of material! -- Boereck 09:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support not SVG - no problem Aotearoa 20:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
7 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 20:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Flower jtca002.jpg - not featured

  • Info: created by (Tomas Castelazo) - uploaded by tomascastelazo - nominated by Tomascastelazo
  •  Support --Tomascastelazo 02:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support--TPM 00:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose no name "flower" --Luc Viatour 07:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Neutral agree, no name for flower, if it did I would vote for it to be featured --Digon3 13:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support--AngMoKio 13:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is a very interesting photo, but no name, and it needs to be cropped a little closer to the flower --Sunshade1 15:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Comment
    The tao that can be described
    is not the eternal Tao.
    The name that can be spoken
    is not the eternal Name.
    So, then if no name, no picture? No flower? No beauty? Maybe we should change this to "Feature Name Candidates" :o) --Tomascastelazo 17:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It needs a name so that it can be identified and use properly in a article. However, oppose just on the basis that it has no name is a little harsh, so I'm changing mine to neutral. --Digon3 18:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose no name -- Lycaon 23:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - there is no info at all, not even where the photo was taken. DirkvdM 10:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Solving the lack of information pointed by DirkvdM would make the pic more useful. --Javierme 15:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support - it's a Passiflora; should be readily identifiable to species, I'll give it a go tomorrow (location would help, please) - MPF 02:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Comment MPF: it was taken at the Guadalupe Valley, Baja California, Mexico, in a garden... it does not look like a native species. --Tomascastelazo 22:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support Good pic.--Erina 22:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice pic. Needs a name. However I have a hunch: Passiflora picturata. Its either that or another w:Passion flower. Don't say I didn't do nothing for you :). Please confirm flower name and also categorise and add all details of location/date etc. -- Tomhab 12:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support very nice structure --Queryzo 12:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose Not even a species, but just one of many hybrids. Passiflora palmeri is endemic in Baja California. If you can arrange an image of that species I would vote support. Hans B. 22:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tbc 14:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Hans B. is an authority on passion flowers. His vote should be considered seriously.
  •  Comment all non-anonymous votes are considered seriously. Lycaon 15:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I know, that's not what I meant. I wanted to say, in Dutch, dat zijn stem meer zou mogen doorwegen. Tbc 20:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 20:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lycaena virgaureae.JPG - featured

  • Info: created by (IMAGEAUTHOR) - uploaded by Algirdas - nominated by Algirdas
  •  Support --Algirdas 22:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support --Luc Viatour 07:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Beautiful butterfly, I love it. --Atlantas 09:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support Has a name for it, beautiful picture, good colours/close-up. --Digon3 13:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support — Lycaon 13:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support--AngMoKio 13:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice, but not such a great res (1300x900). -- Tomhab 22:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support - very nice butterfly! --Hugo.arg 07:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support - MPF 01:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support - Indeed a nice picture, and good and correct name. --Lhademmor 15:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support --Dirgela 15:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support --Vp loreta 16:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful picture. Kvitas 17:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice butterfly, very nice Verbas 12:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support nice image Tbc 21:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support Nemo5576 06:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
15 support, 1 oppose → featured Roger McLassus 20:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Grand Canyon South Rim Sunset.jpeg - not featured

  • Info: created by (Digon3) - uploaded by Digon3 - nominated by Sunshade1
  •  Support Very nice colours, beautiful picture of the Grand Canyon --Sunshade1 19:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice picture! Moralist 14:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support captured the Grand Canyon well --Teh Dvd 16:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Unlike the unforgettable impression of the real Great Canyon this picture is rather boring. Furthermore, there is too much sky and the lower left corner is too dark. Roger McLassus 20:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Would it be better if I cropped it and got rid of the dark corner and some of the sky? --Digon3 01:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lycaon 08:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - tend to agree with Roger McLassus, particularly re the sky; also a bit hazy - MPF 01:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support - Nice picture, I like the tree in the left very much, it makes the picture less boring, and the light on it is great. Also nice clouds. Moralist 10:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - we've got many pictures of GC, and I can't see why this is special. --Lhademmor 15:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Background is too dark--Hi-tacks 19:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose — Lack of composition, lack of quality of light, the sky is dull, harsh shadow, not a special picture of GC (that means not qualified as FP). Indon 14:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
4 support, 6 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 20:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bryce Canyon Hoodoos.jpg - featured

  • Info: created by (Digon3) - uploaded by Digon3 - nominated by Sunshade1
  •  Support Very unique, great colours/angle, amazing pic. --Sunshade1 15:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Pour Mjem 15:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very interesting, amazing picture --Teh Dvd 16:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support - combines nicely with the Winchester cathedral flags below. Nature's cathedral, so to say. :) DirkvdM 17:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support Romary 21:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support Good diagonal, good shadow area in foreground left, throws view to main subject, good texture. --Tomascastelazo 00:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support- nice Andreas.Didion 06:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Lerdsuwa 16:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support - MPF 01:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Contra too high color saturation and apart of that not a special composition. The trees disturb. --AngMoKio 14:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Comment I did not modify this picture. What you see is what I had seen.--Digon3 17:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support - Nice. --Lhademmor 15:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- I think you have not taken full advantage of the great motives you can shoot at Bryce Canyon. I have taken nicer pictures back in the day with my analog camera - it rained that day... - Boereck 09:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- I wasn't there but have seen much more interesting pictures from that place. Perhaps I'm missing something to focus my eye in the foreground. Andreas Tille 09:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose composition (or rather hardly any composition) norro 21:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured Roger McLassus 20:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Winchester cathedral flags.jpg - featured

  • Info: created and uploaded by Tomhab - nominated by Tomhab
  •  Support --Tomhab 18:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Pour Mjem 15:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support --Leclerc 13:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Good composition, good technical quality (res, focus...)
  •  Support - has a very 'massive' feel to it and I like the contrast between the grey and the red. DirkvdM 17:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Converging lines due to camera position, curvature of lens too evident. Poor technique in general. --Tomascastelazo 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
What curvature? I dont see any curvature(they look straight). --Digon3 01:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
There is an ever so slight curvature, but that only adds to the effect. To me the main criteria here are beauty and educational value and the curvature doens't hurt either. Many people are too focused on technicalities. Take the rule of thirds. You may find that many beautiful pictures follow this rule, but that doens't mean one can reverse that. If one day I find that most girls I like are blondes, then that doensn't mean that I should reject all brunettes from then on. :) Beauty is instinctive and true art is often even based on breaking the rules in stead of following them. DirkvdM 10:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The curvature is most notable if you photograph big building from close distance. Or if you photograph ... pretty much anything with short focal length (very high FOV)
For me, if the image have high resolution, the important areas are sharp and it is not overexposed or underexposed - then the technical quality is perfect. --Leclerc 16:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support --Pluke 09:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Comment Dirk, yeah, sure, there seems to be a lot of double standards around here... but one thing is for sure, a general lack of knowledge in distinguishing the elements of photography. Personal taste is no substitute for informed critisism. I have no problem with either one, but they are two different things --Tomascastelazo 16:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course. The question is just which one counts most. DirkvdM 04:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Lerdsuwa 16:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Neutral - would support if the blue person edited out - MPF 01:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Neutral - agree with MPF. Get rid of mr. Blue and I'll support