Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Tour of gippsland final stage.jpg

Tour of Gippsland



 * Reason:High quality image of bicycle racing. Good enc value. Alternative panoramic view: Image:Tour of gippsland final stage pano.jpg
 * Articles this image appears in:Bicycle racing and Road bicycle racing
 * Creator:Fir0002


 * Support as nominator --Fir0002 12:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not bad but nothing special, a bit soft too Capital photographer (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is clear from the expression on the riders' faces that this is an arduous climb, as you say in the description. This is not shown well in the image however. The panoramic version does a better job of showing this. Could a crop between the two in terms of length (and perhaps with the detail of the original) be made? Nautica Shad es  15:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As per request consider Alternative 1 --Fir0002 01:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made another crop (Alt 2). I like the landscape, but the nearest reflector is distracting. —Pengo 05:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The crops are even worse. The mountains in the distance don't say much about what they have just done, there isn't enough of a link between them in the image. The riders are to small and to far to the side of the frame. I do wonder why the image doesn't show more of what was to the right of the riders, where they are riding from. Capital photographer (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To the right is an uninteresting rock face. It is totally useless in showing where they have come from, whereas the LHS does show this by demonstrating the terrain. --Fir0002 07:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Insert discussion subpage: The rest of this discussion can be found here - was becoming somewhat ungainly and irrelevant to say the least! :) --Fir0002 13:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe just once if Fir were to post a full size photo... This picture would probably only pass if that is the case (or at least a larger one). At the size the pictures are at you're not going to get the hills and the detail needed for the picture to pass. IMO at least. victorrocha (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A truly unfair comment given the 1000px minimum guideline. Huge resolution is not a prerequisite for a Wikipedia FP. --Fir0002 07:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not trying to be harsh but I would have to say that this picture at a larger size would benefit from a great landscape and the detail of the riders. The current candidate and the alternatives have one but not the other. It is not a requirement for the photograph to be huge but I believe this particular example would benefit from a higher res. The alternatives are definitely pictures that would grab someone's attention in the main page. victorrocha (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah bigger is always better, but IMO this is plenty enough to appreciate the scene. And since you yourself have said this would be eye catching on the main page, I think it's worth of FP. --Fir0002 10:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree that its slightly on the small size, especially when you've released the original image at much higher res. Whats the purpose of the low res of the panorama? Its not really something you could sell on a stock site as you'd need releases from the riders, so restricting commercial use shouldn't be a reason. My symbolic support is for your edit of Alt 2, but at a higher res. Even without reading the comments, I felt like it was just a bit small. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The original is only higher res because it is wider - the alternative "mini pano" does not have any less detail. This being a local event I can sell prints of it, so by providing a high res version I still would be at a potential commercial loss. And anyway, aside from "bigger is better" what exactly would a higher res version provide that this version is lacking? The only thing I can think of are the riders faces, but as you can see from the original image I nominated (close to a 1:1 crop), you can't really make out their faces anyway. --Fir0002 23:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe someone could actually write an article about this event. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: What's with the clouds in the Panoramas? They seem painted, especially looking at edit 1 of alt 2. Spencer  T♦C 20:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support. If an alternative with the same crop as Alt 2 and the detail of the original is uploaded, I'll support. The current quality of the detail of Edit 1 is not superb, and it could only be offset in my opinion by a higher resolution version. Nautica Shad es  22:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to make MER-C's life easier I'll just say now that I won't be uploading this image at any higher res. Sorry guys --Fir0002 01:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose all except for Alt 3 and maybe Alt 2 Edit 1 - Original for me doesn't show enough of the background. To me it just looks like hills surround the road, not the road is actually on an hill. While the others do, only Alt 3 shows the bikers (insignificantly)large enough for myself to establish themselves as the subject. I also have the same arguement for Alt 2 Edit 1, but its rather oversharp. DA PIE EATER (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 04:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)