Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Purity

Purity

 * Reason:The Beauty of Montsouris park
 * Articles this image appears in:Parc Montsouris
 * Creator:Zgalus
 * Nominator: Zgalus


 * Support &mdash; Zgalus 21:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose sorry but serious quality concerns, including (but not limited to) purple fringing on the tree limbs, blurriness. Also I particularly dislike the shading. No wow factor. ~ Arjun  22:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - fringing, and there seem to be white chunks spread over the legs and bushes behind, also a shot from the front of the stature might be more encyclopedic? Debivort 22:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose-fringing, blurry on left side.  Jor co ga Hi!08:34, Saturday, January 27 2007
 * Oppose As all above - Adrian Pingstone 09:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Aside from everything listed above, the lighting is not great. Sun is too low.  I have that problem a lot in the wintertime.  Possibly retry the shot sometime when the sun is higher/brighter?  tiZom(2¢)  03:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Featured pictures are supposed to have a wow-factor. This is just a blurry picture of a statue.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  03:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I was very motivated by all the remarks by the committee and it stimulated my research on the very value of a pixel. Blurriness of my picture is the reason for its unanimous rejection and I'm sorry for the time it took for your eyes and respectful minds to even judge it. I read the criteria before even posting my picture but only your remarks made me see that blurriness and learn from it. The remark by tiZom(2¢) goes a world beyond the pixels and I appreciate it even more.

When I reworked my image and put all the pixels in their just places I obtained a "perfect" image … without a soul, with no defects and I decided I would never leave it hanging on my living room's wall even for a while. It's like the perfect butterfly (Cairns Birdwing) that is a technical achievement of the numeric photography that could be easily integrated into a page on what a perfect image is. "Emma" is the contrast to that ultimate technicality of the "Cairns Birdwing". There are not enough pixels to transform it into the supreme, extreme and extra CAT that is not a cat from the page "Animal shelter" any more and even less of a cat that's looking at you with those eyes of eyes.

Though we should start with pixels when evaluating an image, a wall is not only the collection of bricks. If you do not see a shelter in the cat's eyes you deprive the image of its semantics. It could be a minor argument for its retention and it would probably leave the image where it is now. Perhaps the Picasso's paintings would confront some difficulties in passing the Wikipedia entry pass as well.

I'm a regular reader of Wikipedia articles and I appreciate the illustrations included. Their quality is assured by people like you. But sometimes when I look at certain of them I say to myself what a wonderful world … is it that of mine? Of course I went to see what and how the committee members performed on Wikipedia Pages and I found that most are exceptional works indeed.

There was at least one exception to the rule that I cite here: MaryQueenoftheuniverseshrinejesus.JPG (User:Sharkface217). Having seen it I'm very confused about the blurriness notion now. Very sincerely --Zgalus 15:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at the image page of that MaryQueen photo, you can see where it appears - and it has never been nominated for Featured Picture status, and it would certainly be "shot down" rather brutally here due to the focus problem. If a better image is uploaded, it will certainly replace that one. The main problem with your photo is the blurryness - especially visible in the corners of the full-size image. My guess is that you used a "compact" digital camera, most of which cannot compete in sharpness with the exchangeable lens cameras. Downsampling, or stitching of several images may help you in the future. --Janke | Talk 19:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 06:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Haha, interesting how you noticed that it was my image. That said, I would never nominate that image for FPC. It is far from FP material. It does, however, illustrate the subject. The the MaryQueenoftheuniverseshrinejesus.JPG illustrates the subject well enough (for now, anyway).  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  03:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)