Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SONY A700

Sony Alpha 700
Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2011 at 00:21:11 (UTC)
 * Reason:High resolution, good EV, PD, attractive colouring
 * Articles in which this image appears:Sony Alpha 700
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment
 * Creator:Evan-Amos


 * Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nicely executed image, and perhaps valuable, but not FP. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Care to say why? JJ Harrison (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Even as a photographer I find nothing compelling in a simple picture of a camera. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But put it this way: If you were tasked with providing a photo of the camera for FPC, what would you do differently/better? You might not find it personally compelling, but could you make it more compelling? If so, how? Some subjects are inherently more difficult to make compelling, but for those subjects, we should try to make allowances. All subjects are (in theory) equally important. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  20:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not all subjects are equally important. If they were we would't be deleting reams of content every day for not being notable. That's not my point though. I have stated quite clearly this is a valuable image. I just don't think because something is valuable it should be featured. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How can this be both a valuable image and an unimportant subject? Although we delete articles for having non-notable subjects, the threshold is pretty low and provided there are enough sources, one can take any subject to Featured Article. We don't allow people to oppose FAs because they aren't interested in a subject, or because they think the subject is unimportant. Perhaps we need to reconsider the "compelling" criterion because it may conflict with "encyclopaedic". We can't just feature beautiful valleys or exotic animals. There's little difference between this and the many featured fruit-on-white-background images we have. As a product shot goes, this is hard to beat. It would be a poor subject if the camera wasn't in mint condition and completely clean. I think Sony would be happy with it on their website or in an advert in a glossy magazine -- though the advert would probably have a lens. If product shots of man-made objects should be featurable, the we should judge them against the best commercial equivalent shots rather than whether we find that product interesting as a subject. Colin°Talk 19:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Commons has projects that denote "Quality Images" for technical excellence; "Valued Images" because they capture something important/useful; and "Featured Images" that are primarly a combination of the first two and must have a “wow factor”. I think this is a more coherent approach to image classification. This images fails the last test. Please spare me the obvious fact that this is not the Commons. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should we spare you "the obvious fact that this is not the Commons". That's the key point that IMO you are missing. FP on WP are article-based. They "are images that add significantly to articles" and "among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer" (my italics). Whereas, on Commons, the FPs are "some of the finest on Commons" -- no subject or article requirement. The driving force behind FP on WP should be illustrating our articles with fine pictures, not just providing an educational stock image bank. It is hard to see how our Sony Alpha 700 article could be better illustrated by a single picture than this one. I would be very disappointed if there were articles on WP that couldn't possibly be illustrated by a featured pic, because some folk didn't find the subject compelling. Colin°Talk 10:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to be overly cynical, but the subject matter has held back FP nominations before. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The issues there were quite different: how to judge artwork, especially original artwork done for WP. Colin°Talk 12:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the image does not contribute significantly to the article. It just shows what any reader would have imagined anyway. Certainly the text of the article in no way references the image in a meaningful way. Sure it is representative but so would a picture of a table fork in an article on forks. Should this be featured? Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow I don't know how to respond to such a misunderstanding of what an illustration is for. How could someone possibly imagine what that camera looks like without an image? What has the text of the article got to do with it? I mean, why would anyone bother to take pictures of everyday items if the response was "why did you take this -- I already know or can imagine what one of them looks like". That fork picture is stupid and I've removed it from the article. Yes, I think it should be possible to take a featured picture of a fork. We've already got File:Nail-clippers-variety.jpg. Look on a stock photo site. You'll see some careful pictures of forks that people will pay money for. This is a valid subject for high-quality professional photography and should be featurable. Colin°Talk 14:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By deleting that image you just made my point for me. Moreover, I am not misunderstanding what an illustration is... both the fork and the camera are simple illustrations of their subject matter. Neither should be FP because they are boring. Here is a fork picture that is not boring and does a much better job of illustrating what a fork is used for and how it is used. Fork me! Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, no, I don't see how deleting a lame 2-colour silhouette of a fork is relevant to a FP discussion. Although the picture you chose illustrates the use of a fork in action, which is I agree valuable and more interesting idea than a static image, no picture editor would choose it to illustrate an article on forks. The primary subject of the image is the girl. The secondary subject of the image is eating. To be an FP of a fork, the fork needs to remain the subject. Look at all the bird pictures we have. Very few are interesting pictures in an artistic sense. We feature them largely for their technical and encyclopaedic merit. Just because you find camera equipment boring. If we took that attitude, we've have folk opposing bird photos with "yawn. we have enough birds already. I know what a bird is." Coming back to the camera. How would one make a camera interesting? Perhaps advertisers know? Well they just use pictures like this. Go to Canon or Nikon's home pages. You'll see the same picture as this, just with a different badge. Nikon have theirs tumbling about. That's about as unboring as you can get and keep the camera as the subject. Colin°Talk 17:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, of course you don't see my point. I think that was clear from the start. Nevertheless, you deleted a boring static image of a fork and I showed you one that was much more compelling. I wasn't arguing for it to be FP, but it was closer to being FP than any static image of a plain fork on a white background. That is the case with this camera. It is not my job to show you an image of a camera that is FP. Even if it was and I couldn't make it unboring I would not expect it to be FP just because it was well executed. I'll go back to finding some pretty scenes to snap now. Cheers. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support either I like orange and black color duo. There are already two featured images of cameras and this could be an equally decent addition. Brand meister  t   21:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Perfect example. JFitch   (talk)  16:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support This kind of photograph is not easy. Certainly harder than finding some pretty scenery and pressing the button. Just making sure the item is clean and free of dust and fluff is a significant hassle, never mind lighting and backgrounds. Very good. Colin°Talk 21:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Colin -- Extra   999  (Contact me) 07:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support well executed. Not sure about which way to go on the whitespace though.©Geni 18:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Colin's reasoning. J Milburn (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)