Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Elakala Waterfalls

Elakala Waterfalls
Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 04:20:04 (UTC)
 * Reason:Illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Blackwater Falls State Park, Long exposure photography
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes and/or Featured pictures/Other
 * Creator:Forest Wander


 * Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Fabulous. Brandmeister[t] 05:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Since it's a picture I uploaded.. lol. — raeky ( talk 06:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Brandmeister. Greg L (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Beautiful, though I find the composition to be a bit left heavy. Cowtowner (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support. The colors look a bit unnatural, but overall well-composed and interesting. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support It has a wow effect. It is interesting, but looks so unreal. There are no digital tricks, I assumed. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * oppose as the digital trick significantly reduces its EV for Blackwater Falls State Park. I would go to the extent of removing the img from the article. Support for Long exposure photography (digital trick) as the subject.
 * I don't see why long exposure would reduce EV that much (it reveals real things you otherwise would not observe so clearly), but I agree with its relevance in Long exposure photography, so I added this to the nomination. Please consider that this is a single nomination, so is confusing if you both oppose and support. --Elekhh (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is an oppose then. The alternate pointed by Avenue is better. Have replaced this image with the alt in Long exposure photography, where the effect is much pronounced. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - too stylized for an encyclopedia photo, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I added this to Long exposure photography. It really punches up that article and adds a lot of EV there. Greg L (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree it has plenty of EV in Long exposure photography at least. But the composition does seem uncomfortably left heavy. I prefer the photographer's next shot. --Avenue (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The Alt version has a more "classic" composition, but other shortcommings (very dark upper-left corner, tighter framing, strong focus on foreground circle feature) which reduce its EV for the State Park article. Note that I removed Long exposure photography from the nomination as it is still disputed, and distracting from this nomination. Please assess this nomination as is. Currently the above argument reads: "Oppose image A in article B because I would like image C in article D more." --Elekhh (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it could now be read that way, although I meant "in articles B and D" where you have interpreted it to mean "in article D". Sorry this was unclear. I think the EV of either photo in the State Park article is moderate (not strong, not weak), because the waterfall is somewhat in the background of each. The nominated photo is somewhat better on that front, but not enough to make up for its unbalanced composition IMO. It is also more tightly cropped above the waterfall, and the shelf projecting over the swirling pool from the left intrudes enigmatically without really becoming a feature of the photo. So I still oppose it, sorry. --Avenue (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Avenue. Would support the alt version mentioned by Avenue. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was a bit unsure at first due to the "left heavy" aspect of this picture, but given the alt found by Avenue I definately Oppose this and would prefer the alt to be nom'd as better composition. Gazhiley (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment / suggestion This picture is my wall paper right now, so seeing some ‘oppose’ votes is unfortunate for the nominator, who is also the creator of this outstanding photograph . I understand the rationale: 30-second-long exposure adds too much artistic flourish and detracts from its encyclopedic value when illustrating Blackwater Falls State Park; I just think it unfortunate. I would propose then that the nominator do as did User:Floydian with his time exposure (withdrawn → renomination) based on its use in Long exposure photography. There, this picture perfectly illustrates that particular subsection of the article and does so in a gorgeous way. Greg L (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The nominator isn't the creator of the photograph as far as I know, the creator is ForestWander and has a west virginia phone number on his website. Elekhh's user page says hes in Europe... — raeky ( talk 16:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Speed skimming instead of reading. Greg L (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not relevant, but for the record: confirming I am not the creator, I am European, but not in Europe atm. --Elekhh (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that the other version is better for Long exposure photography as the circle is more dominant, but for the same reason this version is better for the Blackwater Falls State Park article, as it shows a wider frame. A bit unfortunate these changes during the nomination, but please reconsider your vote. I still believe this version has very good EV for Blackwater Falls State Park. In reality we don't perceive the world in bits of seconds but as a continuum, and we would hear the sound of the water and see the direction of the flow. Short exposure would have recorded a static view (as we are used to) but not closer to reality. I believe the 30sec long exposure chosen here reveals aspects of the waterfall a short exposure wouldn't have, without compromising other aspects. --Elekhh (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Example of waterfall FP with same exposure time . --Elekhh (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * EV was an issue in that nomination too. It was helped through by being used in Neutral density filter as well as Hobart Rivulet. --Avenue (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Elekhh, no one is saying that picture isn’t great for use in the Blackwater Falls State Park article. It can stay there. It should stay there. Damn nice picture. The motion being advanced here is that for it to receive FP status, it should also be featured in an article in which it adds more encyclopedic value. As it is now in Long exposure photography, there, it speaks straight to the heart of that issue and illustrates it very very effectively. So if you A) keep it in both articles, and B) withdraw this nomination, and C) renominate it with a caption and link referencing the Long exposure photography article, it may well achieve FP status based on its aesthetic qualities and its EV to that particular article. Note that I voted “support” already. You can count on another “support” vote in the context of the photography article. Greg L (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that both cannot be feautured and therefore it should be decided which one has higher EV? --Elekhh (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all… hey, I’m on your side here. First, I didn’t understand there were two versions of this photo. Nor did I realize User:Redtigerxyz changed the image on Long exposure photography (∆ here) to the Alt version. Given that it was my idea in the first place to add your picture there, I got a bit bold and changed it to the original, more colorful version. I’ve got that one as my wallpaper at this very moment; well done. This is not complex. In a nutshell: If the present voting trend persists, it is simply a matter that neither of these pictures can win FP status so long as the caption and associated article remains Blackwater Falls State Park; insufficient EV seems to be the common theme to the “oppose” votes. Now, you can do whatever you please. But I suggest you withdraw the nomination and re-nominate it in association with Long exposure photography and with a caption similar to the one shown here. Greg L (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, I wish to reaffirm my nomination of this version based on EV for Blackwater Falls State Park as detailed above. The candidacy of Alt based on EV in Long exposure photography shall be a separate candidate at a later stage. I would like to ask everybody to focus on this nomination for now. --Elekhh (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a good, running precedent for images using long exposure to capture waterfalls. This nomination should not be subjected to special treatment. I think it is also notable that we do not see waterfalls in freeze frames. We instead view them in motion, flowing. A long exposure is a valid way to capture that and does so accurately. Cowtowner (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. I agree. The artistic “flourish” of long exposure for waterfalls is pretty much the norm. However, you may be too late, Cowtowner, since I seldom see so many “oppose” votes reverse this late in the game. Let’s keep our fingers crossed. I think this is a very attractive picture that would cast Wikipedia in a very good light for 24 hours when it is on our main page. Greg L (talk) 05:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * May I just point out that the reason my vote will stay as "Oppose" is highlighted by the example pictures you have included... Notice all 5 of the examples the main subject (which is arguably the waterfall even though the topic is BFSP) is central to the picture, however the nom it is squashed into the top left corner... To me this is bad composition, only highlighted by the alt picture found where the water is central to the picture - the waterfall in the background and the circles in the foreground... When I look at the nom my eyes are immediately diverted to the bright green almost glowing moss, whereas in all the below pictures the incredible effect of the water is my main focus... So I will continue to Oppose this nom, but would happily support the alt if that was nom'd... Gazhiley (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that rationale and I mentioned the composition was a concern in my support. That said, I'm not wholly sold on the alt. In that image I feel like the waterfall has been squashed into the top right corner. Considering these compositional shortcomings, I've changed my support to weak. Cowtowner (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)