Talk:Equestrian statue of the Duke of Wellington, Aldershot

start
The article seems to be started incorrectly. 88.203.54.74 10:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox photo
I added the image I'm proposing as the alternative to the article at an earlier date, but it was reverted by Wyrdlight with the reason "Not sure its a better photo as too dark to see statue detail". I'm not sure if this is really true, and would like a discussion over this. The two images have almost the same detail in the thumbnail, the current just a little more (although that's due to the image being a little overexposed.) The text saying "Wellington" is also near unreadable in the current image. On top of that, the replacement is of a much higher resolution, and has far more detail than the current photo when at full resolution which makes it possible to see features on the statue such as veins on the horse and face detail. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Image has been edited again. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment the current picture is indeed of lower resolution, but the composition is much better with the silhouette clearly visible. The alternative is very unfortunately framed with the large tree in the background distracting. -- ELEKHHT 22:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The top image is preferable mainly because of the tree that spoils the lower image. The fact that "Wellington" can be more clearly seen on the alternative image is rather beside the point for this article - we know who it is! Gaius Cornelius (talk) 09:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * CommentHello - thanks for the discussion. The image I provided was processed for the web and initial viewing at the 'thumbnail' size seen on Wiki pages. At this size I think more of the detail can be seen with a better overall impression of the statue. The alternative may be considered as too dark in this respect although this isn't the only consideration. I could upload a higher resolution image and review the contrast range, but at the end of the day its a matter of taste and the purpose of the photo in the context its shown. Happy to go with viewer opinion. 11 Feb 14 Wyrdlight
 * I think an improved image would be helpful no matter the result of this. I'm going to add a link to the Commons category to the article so people can see all of the images. I took a large amount on the same day, but I haven't got around to processing those yet so that should again populate the category. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment For an encyclopedic article like this, is is nice for the reader (and isn't this who we do it for) to have a 'documentary' style image. For instance, on this laptop that I am currently posting from, the image is a mere 2x by  1 and  3/8 inches. Most reader will not click on the image for the full picture. Wyrdlight's image therefore is the better documentary image (for this article). Now, I know I am about to preach to the converted but let me  say this is for the benefit of other readers: I bet Wyrdlight  a pint of good English ale, that he shot this in RAW and adjusted the contrast in photoshop. From personal experience I know the same effects can be done also with GIMP and many other post-processing-applications too.  However, it is only too easy to take these enhancements too far and end up with a really horrible image. In this, WyrdLight also appear to have made a good judgement call to  achieved the right balance. A higher resolution image  (in my view) would not enhance this Wikipedia article (but of course, the higher the resolution uploaded to WikiCommons the better). If  is was was to take such an image, I would do something like  WyrdLight, but with the benefit of hindsight, I would steady  my 120 Kodak Box Brownie on top of the roof of my Triumph Mayflower and take several exposers (and with the only aperture setting being Full Sun, Cloudy and Bulb that  'ain’t easy). Then in the comfort of my dark-room, I would perform the magic of dodging and burning. Mind you, the results  would all be in black and white ... yet look fantastic! Bring back the 120 roll film! Err... think I have gone off on a tangent. But trust you get my point.--Aspro (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"At the time it was the largest equestrian statue in Britain"
So, isn't it any more? Then which is now? Also: Wellington Arch still claims: "the largest equestrian figure ever made", citing the Telegraph from 2012. --BjKa (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Equestrian statue of the Duke of Wellington, Aldershot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006050604/http://www3.hants.gov.uk/museum/aldershot-museum/local-history-aldershot/wellington-statue.htm to http://www3.hants.gov.uk/museum/aldershot-museum/local-history-aldershot/wellington-statue.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006050604/http://www3.hants.gov.uk/museum/aldershot-museum/local-history-aldershot/wellington-statue.htm to http://www3.hants.gov.uk/museum/aldershot-museum/local-history-aldershot/wellington-statue.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)