Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/HDR Capitol Dome

HDR Capitol Dome


A photo of the U.S. Capitol dome brought in from HDR. Illustrates both topics.

Oppose - sucks.--Deglr6328 11:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Mikeo 23:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nominated. - Noclip 15:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. You can't support your own images . Also this image is currently ineligible because it is not used in any articles . Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I like the image but prefer this one. Mooveeguy 16:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The picture is fuzzy and the quality of the sky is fairly poor.  It's also slightly tilted. bcasterline t 17:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The sky is very grainy. It also seems to have some sort of smudge just to the left of the statue on top of the dome. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean the bird? I was going to pull out my shotgun and kill it (damn thing ruining my shot) but I just didn't have the heart. - Noclip 18:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ho, ho! :-) But I don't think the thing I'm talking about is a bird. I'm talking about a smudge about 400 pixels from the left of the image and 145 pixels from the top. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Here we go again, what's happening to FPC! Very low standard pics are common now. Weird colours, fuzzy, no contrast - Adrian Pingstone 19:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is a very poor example of HDR in my opinion. It is very soft, contrast is washed out, yet the statue at the top of the dome is almost black without any detail or texture. I don't think it really demonstrates HDR at all as this seems to be a scene that could have been captured (presumably better!) with just one 8 bit image. To properly demonstrate HDR, I think its important to show the individual images that combine to create a HDR image. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not very sharp, and not very illustrative of HDR either. --Dschwen 20:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. grainy sky, slightly tilted, bad contrast, should never have become FPC 219.101.32.82 22:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I am sick of hearing people say thing like 'Why was this nominated?' etc. Not everyone has the same opinions. If you dont like the picture just give your reasons, there is no reason to critsize for nominating. If you think you know what an FP is, nominate some. What happened to WP:BITE? This especially pisses me off because it's not the people that are spending their time removing the nominations that are complaining AND I dont see any nominations in the last few months from EITHER of the two complaining . We need to be accepting of new FPCers rather than scaring them off. -Ravedave 04:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been contributing images to WP for 3 years now (1300 so far) and voting in FP since it started so I believe I know a good pic and a bad pic. Recently we've had some pics that should never be here. How hard is it for the person to first scroll down through the other pics here and get an idea of the standard? Notice that opinion on this pic is in agreement with mine, I just expressed myself more forcefully. I don't usually write so harshly but just recently I lost my cool over the pics we've been seeing and so I wrote from the heart. I believe it needed to be said. (By the way, there is no requirement for voters to also add pics (assuming you're talking about me) I just prefer adding pics to WP itself, and I wonder how you would have voted?) - Adrian Pingstone 08:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just stop biting the newbies. It doesnt take much of your time to scroll past the picture. If it bothers you that much leave a nice note on the nominators page offering to help them pick pictures to nominate. If you 'know' what a good pic is lets see some nominations from you, it looks like you do lots of editing here so you should see lots of pics every day. Before I started posting here I had no idea what 'blown out highlights' were and didn't realize that a 2 degree tilt could even be noticed by anyone. I have been trying to fix the problem by improving What is a featured picture? to make it clear what is needed rather than just complaining. -Ravedave 14:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You have a point Ravedave, but I really think that a lot of the newbie FPC contributors don't actually read any of our instructions or guidelines, as demonstrated by the aquarium nomination above. ;) Although we should be welcoming to newbies, it would be nice if there was a little questionaire that newbie FPC'ers had to get through to demonstrate that they had read and understood the guidelines before they could get to the FPC page. :) Ah well, we can dream, can't we? Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have decided to be bold and I've removed this image from both the Capitol article and the HDR imaging article. Both articles had far higher quality images that better described the subject and I found this image's inclusion as unnecessary. Apologies to the original contributor and nominator, but an image has to have a purpose to appear in an article, let alone be a FPC. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with above. Alr 17:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.png|15px]] Strongly Oppose - I thought HDR images were meant to look better than standard photographs? As it is, this is awful. If you want to see HDR properly, look at the chapel picture below or cs_militia on a high spec machine, not this. &mdash;Vanderdecken&there4; &int;  &xi;  &phi;   11:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair, HDR images are not automatically better looking than standard photos. The art of compressing an HDR image into a displayable image is not an easy thing, and if you're not careful, the image will look extremely fake or lacking in contrast. Its difficult to make a deep shadow look deep while still having useful visible detail, for example, and requires precise curves/settings to create a realistic image. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 07:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose, kind of washed out. Not a particularily good example of HDR at this stage, maybe it could be improved in some way. Also, not in an article. -Fadookie Talk 13:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)