Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Route of Heroes

Route of Heroes
Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2010 at 16:09:19 (UTC)
 * Reason:Though I'm not sure how grand this photo is, I feel it is a really spectacular composition of a rather simple subject. It could possibly be brightened a bit, but the solemn grey skies and dark image go hand in hand with the subject and theme.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Don Valley Parkway
 * FP category for this image:WP:FP
 * Creator:Floydian


 * Support as nominator -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It's very dark. It'd need levels adjustment, at the least. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm uploading two adjusted versions at the moment. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Insufficient EV to illustrate the parkway. Illustrating a sign on the parkway (as this is used in the article) is not worthy of FP status. Whereas the dark, overcast day may lend a somber note to this picture, the overall effect looks exceedingly poor IMO. Greg L (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The sign is the sole focus here, not the parkway. There are plenty of other photos devoted to that purpose. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understood that. As I stated above, IMO, a sign on the parkway (as this image is used in the article) is not worthy of FP status; it is insufficiently noteworthy. That much ignores the issue of the lighting, which couldn’t be more inferior, IMO. “Solemn gray skies” to enhance a “solemn sign” can not come at such a high expense for the basic fundamentals of lighting. If there was ever a proper use for the word “snapshotty”, this is it. Greg L (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral While I can't find a criteria to oppose this picture on, I simple think promoting this kind of pictures erodes the value of having "Featured Pictures".  P. S. Burton  (talk)  18:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just don't understand how a sign representing an official declaration and naming of a highway in honour of Veterans (what else would represent that in picture form? They don't have opening or dedication ceremonies for highways any more.) is less notable than a very very bland non-noteworthy photograph or some unknown army colonel, or a Monarch with a sticker when we already have several FPs of a Monarch? Is FPC about images of high quality, images that make you stare in awe, or images that tell the most information? I see nominations passed on any of those grounds. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  19:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Set that aside for a moment. Substandard lighting would be fall-back reason. This looks like a point ‘n’ shoot, disposable film camera was used; the exposure and lighting is horrible. Greg L (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sorry, I'm just not seeing it. It's a well composed shot, but I'm not really convinced. I fear this may be the fact I couldn't be described as a roadfan showing, but I do try to avoid biases of that sort. This isn't the easiest subject matter to photograph in a compelling way. J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Can you reshoot from a better angle on a day with better weather? -- I'ḏ ♥  One  14:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The weather I can try for... A better angle may be hard; the sign is 10 feet tall and located in the centre of an interchange (I got honked at a lot). What would you consider a better angle? Looking down, one that captures more or less of the surroundings, less sky? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't know if there's "perfect" way to shoot a road, especially one that according to its article has more than 60,000 cars driving on it daily and is 10 miles long... An aerial or at least higher angle if possible to get a longer view. FPC also tends to frown upon cars, though clearly the shutter must've been pretty fast for this shot, I think blurred cars tend to go over better to show off a busy road and minimize the presence of cars (I could be wrong about this), forgot the name of this camera trick. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  03:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)