Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Homework - vector maths.jpg

Vector Maths

 * Reason:A high quality shot with excellent enc value - I really don't see how it could be improved (but obviously that's for you guys to find!). And I also thought it would be quite a fitting subject for what will be my last nomination for quite some time as I start my first semester of an Aero/Law double degree which promises to keep me very busy!
 * Articles this image appears in:Homework
 * Creator:Fir0002


 * Support as nominator Fir0002 11:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support for your reasons given...I can't really oppose you. Great handwriting btw =D Dengero (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support It's a little too neat for most homework, but can't oppose for that ;). Very well composed image. Good luck with your studies. --liquidGhoul (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree lol! And the placement of the penicl case and rubber is so perfect it looks rigged just for the picture ROFL. Dengero (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support difficult to illustrate well, but this does it. &mdash; BRIAN 0918  &bull; 2008-02-21 17:58Z
 * Support Ugh, I hate doing proofs. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I went through the vector proof and, so far, everything seems to be correct... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Matt Deres is right, this is a trivial picture (though high quality) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment and no vote. The composition is kind of unappealing to me (since the white notebook takes up so much of the frame and the text is nearly upside-down from the viewer's perspective), but I don't know what I would do to change or improve it.  Spikebrennan (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I always feel like a jerk when I oppose something Fir has offered, rare though that is. There's not much to say about the technical aspect (we know he can take a picture!), yet I don't see anything of feature quality here. To me, there are two things that led to my oppose: first, I don't know how useful the picture is - period. This is just some dude doing math proofs; you could give the viewer almost exactly as much encyclopedic content using plain text. I just can't picture someone reading the homework article and still having some question left over that this picture might answer, so (to me) it fails criterion 5. Second, I just don't find this impressive at all; there's no "wow" factor here, nothing to draw a viewer in to learn more about a topic. I usually think it's inappropriate to compare two FPCs that are currently on the block, but I find it incongruous that pictures like those of the Himba ladies should be dismissed as being snapshots, while this utterly mundane (with all due respect) picture is almost universally lauded. Gah! I feel like I need absolution now! Matt Deres (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not about the subject matter so much as it is about carefully planning the composition and getting a professional looking photo. But I also oppose purely because it's not very enc. Try commons D\=&lt; (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Matt's comment above got me thinking about what a high-quality, encyclopedic image of homework should look like, and... this is better than anything I can think of.  Sing  Cal  01:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Recognising the photo's technical quality, this just doesn't have any wow factor for me. Pstuart84 Talk 13:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also Fir, good luck with the degree - uni years really are the best! Pstuart84 Talk 13:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No they're not. No money, obcenely huge mounting debt, no time for anything but work and studying, slop for food (OK not slop, but no successful adult would touch it), sharing a tiny room with other people and a communal housing arrangement that defies any reasonable expectation of a quiet place to sleep at night, nonstop stress from grades and work. I'd say more than 85% of the people in my dorm have serious sleeping disorders that probably deserve immediate medical/psychological intervention, but of course they don't because that's the least of a college student's worries- most students just drown themselves in coffee. I don't know how things work in Australia, but I can't imagine they're very different. I get that the later stages of life are boring or whatever but adults tend to have a ridiculously distorted view of what adolescence and early adulthood is actually like- the uncertainty far outweighs any excitement. D\=&lt; (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no wow factor in homework. MER-C 07:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Meets all criteria, and, from a slightly biased perspective, probably as likely a nom to gaining FP status that's related to my profession as we're going to get. Would strong support if they were doing homework for a real subject like Physics or IT ;-). --jjron (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sorry Fir, the light is pretty flat and does nothing to highlight the main subject. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 17:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You've mentioned lighting on more than a few of your recent opposes. I'm just curious, what would you do to improve the lighting? I think that anything more direct direct than this won't help much&mdash;shadows help bring out textures in some photos, but here it would just distract from the real subject, IMO. Thegreenj (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I may oppose due to lighting fairly frequently, mainly because it is the most important technical aspect of photography. Composition is the other thing you will see me oppose for more than some people. In this photo, it seems like the light on the paper (the central subject of the photo) is indirect window light or other fairly flat reflected light. There seems to me some artificial light from the lower right (probably tungsten based on color). That would be all fine except that the artificial light is aimed to high. It falls mainly on the hand doing the homework and less on the paper. The hand, then, is the focal point of the light in this picture, it appears that the meter exposed for it leaving the rest of the picture somewhat contrast-less with luminosity near that of highlights. The light on the hand is pulling the balance of the image way to the top RHS and the OOF paper at the bottom LHS serves to exacerbate that problem. I feel like the artificial tungsten would have been better placed in the lower LHS of the image and aimed significantly lower. If you are curious about any of the other opposes in more detail. Drop a link and I'll be happy to elaborate. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 00:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but I'm really uncertain it would make much of a difference if what you said were done. Getting the balance right with light is fine and dandy with if you want to perfect the aesthetic nature of the picture, but doesn't it look perfectly natural as it is? Of course the paper has a luminosity near the highlights&mdash;it's white! How much contrast would you gain if you moved the lights, and, more importantly, how would that help the picture? Not that I'm questioning the validity of any of your opposes; I just think that you are reading a bit too much into a mundane picture that is really not trying to be more than that. I mean, really, when was the last time homework was exciting? : ) Thegreenj 01:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to weigh in on the lighting issue the only lighting was natural light from a nearby window - there was no artificial lighting on the hand or anywhere else. --Fir0002 10:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - well taken and illustrative. As to User:Fcb981's lighting issues I think that this is an artistic assessment which is always likely to lead to differing opinions. From my point of view the point of an illustration of homework is the doing of the work (rather than the work itself). Light leading you to the hand first then onto the work illustrates better than the reverse, just as an image of horse-riding is better if you are lead to the rider first rather than the horse. I like the way the composition and lighting leads you across the work to the worker, then back to the work - Peripitus (Talk) 03:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I've been down that road before -- ZeWrestler  Talk 23:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks to everyone for your well wishes they're appreciated! And sorry about the subject choice jjron! ;-) --Fir0002 10:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * SupportAt first, I thought it was a picture for the article on vector maths, which that wouldn't be good for; but as it's for homework, it seems like an excellent treatment of the subject. Dr. Extreme (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Peter ;-) --Petar Marjanovic 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (I've already voted, so don't count me twice!) I can't believe the amount of support for this utterly uninteresting photo. I hate being the guy who seems to want to stir up trouble where none is needed, but there is no way that this qualifies as being a feature quality photo. My opinion is that the support for this picture comes from two sources - people who remember having to do similar exercises and people who want to support something Fir was more personally involved in than usual because they know he's a key contributor. People voting with their hearts. Read the support comments carefully before calling me on an ad hominem. Look, if this was a technically similar photo uploaded by a less recognizable user and his subject was a hand doing elementary arithmetic homework, would the supporters of the current nom also have supported my hypothetical one? I don't think so - it would be "uninteresting" and "have no wow factor" and "be unencyclopedic because homework requires a home setting and none is shown here". A whole lot more people have had to do 2+2 style problems than tackling an equilateral. Matt Deres (talk) 22:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's boring and drab. I'm sure it "illustrates the article" very well but its still boring. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)