Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:40. Robert Eddy, St Kilda FC 01.jpg

Robert Eddy marking

 * Reason:Despite the number of Aussies that seem to contribute images and the popularity of Australian rules football, there is a shortage of good images of this sport on Wikipedia, with many articles lacking images completely. I went and took a batch of photos just before the 2009 AFL Grand Final to try to help address this, and this is probably the best overall. Nearly all our sports based FPs currently seem to be of USA athletes and/or sports. Would help address this, technicals are in line with other sports images, good capture (e.g., facial expression, body positioning, composition), good action, etc.
 * Articles this image appears in:Robert Eddy, Mark (Australian football)
 * Creator:jjron


 * Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a considerable amount of blur on the player such that not much is sharp. Not decided which way to vote yet as the EV is good. --Muhammad (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support original He looks funny in the edit. --Muhammad (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Question why his palms look red?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably the red dye from the leather ball. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  18:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As mentioned this is a training session. They had been doing quite a bit of ball handling work, which if you're familiar with these ball sports, especially in cooler weather, will cause your hands to go red. --jjron (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Firstly, it has great composition and very high EV in Robert Eddy, and high EV in Mark. Thanks for making the effort to go and get this photo and the others you took. I really don't think this has it, unfortunately. None of the image is sharp, fooballers are moving obviously, but they're not going that fast when they take a mark like this. The overblown arm and bits of grass are a pain, not a killer if the image was sharp, but they compound things. I had a look on Commons and this does appear to be the best AFL picture we have. I disagree that it's up with the rest of the sports FPs - File:U20-WorldCup2007-Okotie-Onka edit2.jpg would be more along the lines of what I expect as a sports FP. And lastly, I couldn't support a St Kilda FP... Carna Pies! Mostlyharmless (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a bit biased. I go for the Tiges, but I figured what's the odds of them ever making a GF anytime soon. ;-) --jjron (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support Decent enough shot that shows up nothing but the lack of professional privilege... a 2.8 lens would look cracking wide-open, where this looks a little soft and lacking definition, while the shooting angle not being pitch-side means you get a load of boring grass as a background instead of crowds and stands. Shame to mark a wikipedian shot down for that but that's life, I guess. Weakness of my support reflects only that of my convictions. mikaultalk 22:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This was taken at a practice session. A Grand Final shot would be wonderful. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Get me on-field access at the Grannie and I'll happily comply :-). Re Mick, I was vaguely considering if I could get something decent here I might contact some clubs and see if I could get some better access to illustrate their Wiki articles (this would have been taken from an embankment 30 - 50m away), but them's the breaks. --jjron (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak support Has appropriate EV. Technicals are a bit weak though, and the light is coming from the wrong direction in my view. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, would have preferred to be on the other side, but there were 10,000 people at this session and the gate was unfortunately on my preferred side of the ground for lighting, so couldn't get decent positioning over there as of course that filled first and quickly 1, 2, 3 because of all the other people that didn't want to walk. --jjron (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support either Excellent capture and composition. It's a continual surprise how frequently good sports photography gets underrated at this process because of confusion over the desirability of motion blur.  For still photography, good use of motion blur is an advantage because it conveys a sense of movement.  If anything, the sports images put up for consideration at this process usually have too little of it.  Added an alternate edit with shadow/highlight adjustment to show more detail in the shadowed areas.  Durova  362 17:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - I'm not convinced with the RGB artifacts, blown highlights, and CA-looking edges (especially around right hand and left arm, which is difficult to distinguish from one another due to the over exposure). There's something about the grass that bothers me as well (maybe excessive cloning?). Durova's edit doesn't look well-contrasted. But on the good side, it has great EV hence the weak vote.  Zoo Fari  03:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Regretfully. Would love to see more sports FP's but I just don't think this makes the cut. Composition for example, sport images taken from spectators area (which I believe this one is) are never optimal IMO. Exposure is not good, you got motion blur and over exposure. This image would be some much better with correct exposure, 1/500 could easily have been 1/1600 or faster to freeze the frame correctly. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 05:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I really think that this is a poor shot. This is not because of the technical qualities, which are fine, but because this is not representitive of rugby. I want to see the whole lateral, not just one person with a ball floating in front of them. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  17:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're probably thinking of another code. It's a pretty representative shot of Robert Eddy though, and a pretty good illustration of this kind of mark. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is Australian Football, which is quite different to rugby. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A few more votes please. These are getting more and more insightful. --jjron (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per Noodle Snacks. The lighting is not optimal, but EV is high.  (I don't know anything about Australian Football, but this shot helps illustrate several features of the game such as the size and shape of the ball, and the manner in which a player catches it.)  Spikebrennan (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support nice image, but reminds of a shot published in a fashion magazine.--Caspian blue 09:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose; At the moment of the photograph he appears to have an awkward stance or gait. Hands are a bit fuzzy. Would the sports manoeuvre be better illustrated by a video clip? Snowman (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It may look awkward (indeed, much of the game looks awkward to the uninitiated), but this is a fairly typical move in Australian Football. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know I voted, however I struck out my vote due to it having a false premise. There is not COI, and the closers are all away this week. Someone needs to close the backlog.

-- Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)