Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Double-alaskan-rainbow

Double Alaskan Rainbow

 * Reason:Perfect example of a rainbow clearly showing all 7 colours, dramatic and eye catching, well framed and people provide scale
 * Articles this image appears in:History of scientific method, Rainbow
 * Creator:Ericrolph

Email from Ericrolph...so you can hear his thoughts about the pic:
 * Support as nominator &mdash; McKDandy 17:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice the stitch. While I stand by the merit of the picture, this does make it unsuitable for Featured Picture --McKDandy 11:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support A little on the small side, but otherwise acceptable.--HereToHelp 18:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Very nice pic, but the photographer's shadow and the random people in the pic kind of ruined it for me. Nevertheless, a very impressive shot...is there a version without the people?  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 02:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jumping Cheese!

Wonderful to have been nominated. Thank you for your email. I'm disappointed that you find the people a distraction. They are the reason the rainbow has so much meaning for me. I believe people in images provide scale which helps others relate to the size of the object. I think most peoples experience with a rainbow is viewed at a distance and not nearly as close-up and many people have expressed sentiments along those lines. I can understand that others neither know nor want to relate to people in a photograph. Obviously, I can and would photoshop them out of the image if they made for a better picture, but my feelings are so inexorably wrapped up with the people in the image, I would be emotionally hurt to see them removed from the image. If you'd like to know more about the image, please visit the comments on this image here:

http://flickr.com/photos/ericrolph/54393600/

I was asked by the maintainer of the rainbow article to provide the photo. I was thrilled that he or she asked. I'm equally thrilled that the photo has been nominated. Thanks again for pointing out that the photo was nominated. Your concerns are valid. I'm honored that you took the time to provided an opinion. Thank you again for making wikipedia a treasure to the world. You may share this email message with whomever you see fit.

Warm regards, Eric

On May 24, 2007, at 2:52 AM, Jumping cheese wrote:

Hey Ericrolph!

A pic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Double-alaskan-rainbow.jpg) you uploaded is currently being nominated for Featured Picture status (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Double-alaskan-rainbow).

I "weak opposed" it since there are rather distracting people in the pic. Do you perchance have a version without the people in it? A high-res version wouldn't hurt either. Thanxs. =D Jumping cheese  Cont @ct 19:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC) MER-C 12:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ericrolph that, for me, the people really add to the value of this picture. They make something as distant and unobtainable as a rainbow seem much more reachable and therefore relevant. They exemplify the interaction of the rainbow with the earth, rather than just the sky. I think it could really spark the interest of a reader (especially a child) to learn more about them, which is why I think it adds such value to the article. The shadow of the photographer could easily be cropped. However, I agree the resolution is a little poor, especially compared with some of the other images up for nomination. -- McKDandy 20:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, the resolution is right on the edge of acceptable for me; perhaps with an image of a different nature such a resolution would squeak through. I also agree with JC's comments. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 03:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to nominator - please remember the User: prefix for the Creator field. It's User:Ericrolph not Ericrolph. The last one points to an article entitled Ericrolph, but the first (User:Ericrolph) points to the user page. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 08:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I'm a bit new at this! -McKDandy 20:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The image looks unnatural due to oversaturation (?). Also, it is too small for this subject and I don't like the symmetrical composition. Alvesgaspar 08:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think it really illustrates History of scientific method whatsoever. I had a look and there is only a fleeting reference to a rainbow in the body the article. The caption of the image is simply 'Rainbow' and therefore does not have any connection to the content of the article. As for the Rainbow article, it does add value, but so do all the other images. It isn't a bad image, but it has too many little faults such as low resolution, oversaturation (perhaps), a distracting person in the middle, photographer's shadow at the bottom and non-centred subject and not enough impact on the undertanding of the subject. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the image from that article. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-05-24 15:31Z
 * Oppose. Ahhrgh! Scale?! So the height of an average rainbow is what, approx ten meters? The Rainbow up close (see email)? Whats up with that? A rainbow has no fixed location in space, you cannot get up close, neither can you find a pot of gold where it touches the ground by the way. Sorry, the pic is pretty and I don't see the people as a distraction, but the show how jacked up the saturation is, and sadly the secondary rainbow is cut off plus the image size is to small for my liking. --Dschwen 06:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, There is a horrible stitching error to the top left of the person-with-red-jacket, about halfway between them and the rainbow, slightly higher than where they're pointing. And just to the right of the photographers shadow it looks like some black background showing through, it could just be more shadow but it is very perfect in the middle where it ends at the same height most of the way across to the very pixel. --Benjamint444 08:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're absolutely right. Well spotted. I didn't even think that it was a stitch at first glance. I see the tell-tale signs of a bad stitch on both the left and right hand sides in the grass. It hass obviously been hidden somewhat by significant downsampling. I suspect that would also make it likely that the black strip at the bottom is also because of the stitching projection. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you take a look at the high-res version, you can see like three sticking errors. I don't believe that the photographer intentionally down-sampled the pic to hide the flaws, since the high-res version is easily available. But good catch guys!  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 06:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Too small and does not add much to the rainbow article. Cacophony 22:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; Why was such a small version uploaded? Anyhow, I've gone ahead and replaced the image with its original 1919x1008 photo. ♠ SG →Talk 17:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I like the image, but not for FP. Main problems: excessive sharpening, grain/noise, the photographer's shadow, and the person. IMHO it would be fine if there were people being normal, like hiking or whatever. But not facing the camera being silly. The test: would you ever see an image like this in a print encyclopaedia? No. Never. Stevage 00:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)