Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grizzly Denali edit.jpg

Grizzly in Denali Park
I am nominating this picture of a grizzly bear wandering in Denali National Park, Alaska. The scene was taken in autumn while the tundra of the National Park is colorful.

Image created by (c) Jean-Pierre Lavoie using a Canon Digital Rebel XT camera.


 * Nominate and support. - Jplavoie 16:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now. The original image is not cropped enough IMHO. I've uploaded an edit that I think makes better use of the frame. The tradeoff is significant resolution, but I don't think the out of focus expanse around the bear really contributes to the image, and isn't necessary. I don't know whether the image is special enough to be FPC though. I may reconsider! Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think I actually prefer the less cropped version.
 * Fair enough, but what do you think is gained from the lack of cropping? Is it just aesthetics? Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Nothing specific, I just like seeing more of the bear's environment. Without trying it, I think something in between might be even better. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original. The coloring of the picture is great, and it illustrates its subjects (both Grizzly Bear and Denali National Park and Preserve) well.  I also prefer it less cropped, but the cropped version is also fine. bcasterline t 23:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support orig or larger crop. The blurry plant in the foreground sorta bothers me but given the subject matter and the great colors I can deal with it. Also it makes me think of the photog hiding behind a tiny plant trying to keep the bear from seeing him, which is funny. The crop makes it so you can't tell what the blur is. (Is that good or bad???). Also the crop looses some of the great purple colored plants. -Ravedave 23:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want the bear in focus, you can't have the foreground in focus as well. - Mgm|(talk) 08:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Support either version right now, but I'd prefer a less-extreme crop for this picture. - JPM | 04:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I appreciate that this is a hard subject, the photo itself isn't up to scratch. The head and rear are blurred, and you cannot see the bottom half of the bear. If this were a picture of a cow, it wouldn't be passed. I commend the photographer though, it is a good photo, and you wouldn't see me taking it. :) --liquidGhoul 04:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Blurred? The bear is in perfect focus for me. Perhaps the environment blur is distracting you. - Mgm|(talk) 08:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose Great pic but, for me, not enough Bear showing - Adrian Pingstone 06:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Almost good. I personally like the second edit. However, I don't like the grass in the foreground. Mikeo 07:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] Support My Edit. Nice pic, some problems, but with wildlife such as grizzly bears, you gotta make some exceptions. --Fir0002 style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www 10:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original or Fir0002's edit. Highly expressive and illustrates the subject well. I suggest ignoring any minor technical deficiencies in light of the subject. -Fadookie Talk 12:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose edit, oppose crop. The crop is a little too tight. The original bothers me not that much. Neutral there. I don't think a picture that needs retouching should even be nominated here, and a photoshopped pic should not be promoted. WP is an encyclopedia not a Photoshop-friday. --Dschwen 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm... what exactly is that supposed to mean? It's blurred out background! And if you think that the photographer couldn't have moved in front of that object and achieved the same photo as I made through cloning, you have got to be joking. There is no policy whatsoever that prevents the use of Photoshop to improve a photo. --Fir0002 22:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, I don't think that cloning it out was necessary as it wasn't that distracting to me. However, I can't see how there is a difference between cropping an image in photoshop and twisting the zoom on a lens. Presumbly in this case, the photographer was at the telephoto end of his lens, or I suspect he would have done just that. Fir0002, what Wikipedia presumably does have in policy (and I haven't checked, I'm making the assumption here!) is that it prohibits misinformation. The lines probably become blurred when the touching up is of incidental background details and not the subject of the image but the question remains.. Why is touching up necessary when it doesn't affect the subject? Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the problem was that the plant was in the way of the photographers line of sight, and he could have moved a metre or so right or left to get ride of it, but that might have scared the bear away. I don't think the image I created s providing misinformation at all as it is probably more realistic than having the blurred plant. And as you say, the subject was not affected at all, so the purpose of the photo remains intact, it has just become more aesthetic IMO. Anyway I created it because the plant was bugging some people, so it was just a valid way to remove that problem they had. --Fir0002 style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www 23:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. All the subtleties (cropping (good) vs. retouching (evil)) have already been discussed in great length and I do not intend to repeat all points. --Dschwen 12:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What you are omitting to say is that through all that discussion your case on "evil" retouching had not gained anything near a consensus. You have no valid points to repeat. Retouching of a subject, as long as it is tasteful, is perfectly OK according to the community. See the below votes if you are in doubt as to where retouching stands. --Fir0002 style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www 23:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont think ethics is up for a vote anywhere. And a validity of a point does not depend on its popularity. --Dschwen 05:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And that comment applies in what way to this discussion? --Fir0002 style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www 05:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Play nice, you two. :) It's clear that Dschwen is arguing his personal opinion that simply because something is "acceptable" doesn't make it "right". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * :-)--Fir0002 style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www 12:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There's nothing against retouching in the rules. Besides, most pictures are retouched anyway. If done correctly, that doesn't distract from its encyclopedic value. - Mgm|(talk) 08:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Fir's edit. - Mgm|(talk) 08:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Fir's edit. Just the right balance of the background/foreground non-subject material and the bear himself. Staxringold 15:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Fir's edit.-- Dakota ~ 21:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Fir's edit. Butting in late, had not intended to vote at all. But my vote is also a statement of my views re. touching up a photo. This is not falsifying an image, it's just about making it look better. I see nothing wrong in it if the retouch (and its rationale) is described on the image page (you didn't do that, Fir, so I did! - We should always state what has been edited in a retouched picture...) --Janke | Talk 06:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Allow me one last comment on that matter. One argument that repeatedly comes up is that the photographer could have waited a few seconds or that he could have steped to the left a meter. Why didn't he? Because every photographer is not always lucky, or makes bad judgements sometimes. Tough luck, the shot didn't turn out to be the perfect picture. It could have been, true. But it hasn't, so should it become a featured picture? Should we vote on what a picture could have turned out to be, or on how it actually turned out. Is wanting to make a picture something it just istn't just to make it pass FPC really a valid reason to retouch it? This is an encyclopedia after all. Feel free to move this to the talk page later on. --Dschwen 08:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats where I agree with Dschwen. IMHO, good photography is about capturing everything in the moment, not substituting and retouching later on. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't want to start an argument, but IMO a FP can be something else than "good photography" - if a slight edit removes a trivial but distracting defect, I feel the image's encyclopedic value is actually increased. With today's technology, not everything needs to be done at the click of the shutter. Aren't all the wonderful stitched panoramas "edits", too? As long as we are honest (i.e. clearly state what's been done, and leave the original accessible), I wouldn't oppose edits like this one (or the duffel bag... ;-) Yes, feel free to move this discussion to the talk page later on. --Janke | Talk 15:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with Janke, I mean it's the same as sharpening/saturation/cropping isn't it? If you go by the argument that " Tough luck, the shot didn't turn out to be the perfect picture" and that you should only vote on the output on the original picture, than goodbye cropping, sharpening or anything else. That's completely wrong, no photo should be presented straight out of the camera. All proffessionals post-process their images. --Fir0002 style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www 12:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. About Fir's decision to keep the tilt... the rationale was that since the shot appears to represent a sloping hill, the tilt is "appropriate". If we weren't cropping the image to remove the surroundings, I might agree. But, since we seem to have a consensus of sorts that the close-up is preferable (since we're illustrating a bear, and not "a bear in its surroundings") then I don't know that keeping the tilt is still important. In this case, I think that maybe we should "straighten" the image, seeing as how the subject at issue is "bear", not "bear on hill". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yep, I added another edit. My crop is a little wider giving the bear more room to breathe to the right. It also does not cut the foreground plant. I think this way it is not just an irritating blur, but rather a distinguishable foreground feature. --Dschwen 22:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support dschwen crop. --Dschwen 11:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get too personal, but that's pretty hypocritical of you. You've ben arguing that it's tough luck if the photographer didn't move out of the way of a weed, but then you say that it isn't tough luck if he couldn't hold the camera straight. --Fir0002 style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www 12:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to shoot, I realize that I'm not very demure when it comes to argueing either. But I disagree on the hypocricy. There is a difference between pixel-pushing (modifying select areas of an image) and full-frame manipulation. I tried to lay out my point of view in the discussion we had a few weeks ago. Basically sharpening, perspective correction etc. just compensate for inadequacies of the capturing apparatus (camera). However compensating for inadequacies of the capturer (photographer) should not be a reason to retouch. Ok, and there are two levels to this whole discussion. One is retouching encyclopedic pictures in general. I can now understand Jankes view (correct me if I'm wrong), who is thinking of the retouched picture as an illustration, rather than a photo document. Although it must be immediately clear to the viewer, that he is looking at a modified image! The second level is retouching on FPC. I just don't see why! We have such a load of images who are perfectly fine and wouldn't need maniplulation to make it as a FP. So why are we bothering with retouching? --Dschwen 08:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * (Interspersed in the thread:) Yes, you got my point correctly. I consider most - if not all - pictures on WP as being illustrations for their respective articles. And as a corollary to that, FPC is not a photo competition, as many seem to believe... --Janke | Talk 13:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably should have moved all this to the discussion page by now but anyway. I notice you conveniently left out rotating/cropping out of your "full frame" manipulation argument. Neither of these commonly used tools are compensating for the inadequecies of the capturing apparatus. They would belong in the same category as "pixel pushing". As I see it all photos (except perhaps those of historic significance) are just an illustration not a photo document, so improving the photo is like fixing a grammatical error in a sentence - you're changing the sentence but it doesn't alter the subject.
 * Retouching on FPC why not? We (mainly me actually) are bothering because we wanna help people out. Why do you bother rotating? Same reasons apply. The images which don't need manipulation, those that are perfectly fine, don't get it. But those that need it they can get it. People can then comment, and then any other adjustments can be made. --Fir0002 style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www 11:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't leave it out of convenience, I just got too carried away with my other points. You are actually right, the rotation I applied to my crop is actually questionable, and it should actually be up to the original photographer to judge what's tilted and whats not, if there are no known verticals (like buildings) in the picture. --Dschwen 13:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed my vote to weak support for Dschwen's crop - this is the most pleasing framing of them all. --Janke | Talk 08:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Dschwen's crop per Janke ~ Veledan • Talk 11:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This was a tough call. Impossible to draw a concensus from the comments, but Fir's edit had the most overt support. ~ Veledan • Talk 23:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)