Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/London Hackney Carriage

London Hackney Carriage

 * Reason:I haven't submitted anything here for a while, but I decided to mix it up a bit with an old image of mine that isn't one of my 'usuals'. As such it probably doesn't have the same sort of extreme high resolution wow-factor, but I like the composition and it places two common sights in London together in an aesthetically pleasing way, without the 'clutter' that is quite difficult to avoid in a built up city like London. The car is in focus and sharp (well, relatively), whereas the rest of the frame is motion blurred, but not to the point where anything is unrecognisable. To me, the encyclopaedic value is obvious, as the angle is close to ideal for viewing and understanding what a Hackney Carriage is, and the wow-factor is in the iconic and simple composition making it an unmistakably British institution - overpriced fancy hotels and overpriced fancy taxis! ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles this image appears in:Hackney Carriage
 * Creator:User:Diliff

Support The motion blur in the image is crucial to making it an FP - I mean what could be more boring/snapshotty than a stationary taxi on the sidewalk? Common subjects have a place as FPs but they need to be taken artfully and with skill, and these qualities are seen in this image (both in the composition - the union jack and uncluttered street works well - and in the use of motion blur). --Fir0002 02:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurry parts. A better picture can be taken. -- Shark face  217  02:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, as explained, this is deliberate. Its a motion blurred shot. The parts that really matter (ie, the taxi) are sharp enough. Bear in mind this photo has not been downsampled, so at 100% it is not as sharp as an image that has been downsampled, but the detail is there. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Most of the taxi is blurry too! Also, why is so much of the image way above the taxi where it's so blurry you can't see anything? Motion blur shots have to have a particular close-in composition and the actual subject has to be sharp.. this just has neither characteristic -- f f r o  t   h  00:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Motion blurred shots don't have to have those characteristics at all, thats just your opinion and one that I disagree with. Most of the taxi is not blurry (the rear is slightly, and so are the tyres obviously). Downsample it to a reasonable resolution (as I stated above, it has not been downsampled, so this is roughly what you would expect from a 100% crop) such as ~1500x1000 and you should find it to be acceptably sharp. Much as when it frustrated Fir0002 when he got so much naive opposition to his dragonfly image, it is actually not easy to reproduce or better! Fair enough if it isn't what you want in a FP, but it does get a bit frustrating for me (and again, evidently, Fir0002 too) when non-photographers make rash claims what a photo should and shouldn't contain or be. I spent a good 45 minutes outside the hotel trying to get the 'ideal' shot of a nice taxi passing by. Very very few were as sharp as this one. I'm not saying that "effort equals FP" by any means, by the way, I'm just putting the image in perspective, something which FPC dialogue quite often does not have. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, I totally agree with you Diliff --Fir0002 02:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Sorry, it just seems too blurry...even if it *was* intentional I can't look at it without thinking I have sleep dust in my eyes.  S a u d a d e 7  04:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * weak Oppose the crop should give more horizontal space than vertical, showing more of the street and the flag does not enhance the image Thisglad (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Very iconic. Even if the motion blur is a little distracting, I would think it's pretty unavoidable - this coming from one of those non-photographers ;) - and the cab itself is in focus. CillaИ &diams; XC  14:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose The motion blur is distracting and on too much of the image. It certainly isn't unavoidable. Don't taxis in London ever stop? --D. Monack | talk 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * support The blurriness at the rear is unfortunate, but the dynamics of the shot make up for it, IMO. One quickie question, though. Has the license plate been redacted (whiteacted?) or was it actually blank like that? I'm normally not in favour of any changes to the subject matter of an FPC, but recognize this case might be necessary. If it has been whited out I think some kind of note in the caption might be in order. Matt Deres (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support, at first I was thinking the motion blur should be on the taxi and not the rest of the picture... but, then I got the point. The blur on the back of the taxi and the fact that the taxi is only 30% of the picture are the biggest problem... couldn't you have found a black taxi going in front of a lower flagpole? :) --gren グレン 06:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point about the amount of the frame taken up by the taxi, but I do think it isn't quite as important because the actual image width in the article is such that you can still see the taxi clearly in the thumbnail. As a standalone image, perhaps you're right, but FP is about the image in relation to the article. Next time I'll try for that lower flagpole. ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 04:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)