Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stone sphere

Stone sphere


A fascinating piece of history, carved by hand over 2000 years ago! The image is large and composed well. From the Stone spheres of Costa Rica article, taken by User:WAvegetarian


 * Nominate and support. - Fxer 22:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - maybe fascinating history, but not a fascinating picture. -- P199 22:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose A worthy subject but this is a touch overexposed and a bit unsharp. Also, I find the background distracting. Given that there are over 300 of these ancient stone spheres, I think a better picture must be possible ~ Veledan • Talk 23:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Veledan. Interesting subject, but the background is fairly distracting and doesn't draw attention to the stone sphere. bcasterline t 00:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I would rather see the sphere where it was originally found. This image might give people the false impression that the sphere was originally on the pictured pedestal. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-04-08 02:56
 * Comment. I would like to quote the article in defense of the illustrative nature of the photo: Some of the dynamited spheres have been reassembled and are currently on display at the National Museum in San José. This text was added previous to andnot in connection with the photo of, what  do you know, a stone sphere in the national museum. As the article states, the stone spheres were moved from their original locations. Please do your research before making decisions. Being uninformed is grounds for your opinion being discounted. Saying it isn't as high quality a photo as some of the other featured pics is fine, but attacking it for the location it's in is completely ridiculous. &mdash;WAvegetarian&bull; CONTRIBUTIONS TALK &bull; EMAIL &bull; 18:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with Veledan. Mikeo 00:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I took this photo before I considered myself a photographer. In truth, it is a vacation photo from a high school spring break trip. The extreme depth of field is because it was shot with auto everything. It wasn't really taken with the idea of illustrating the stone sphere, rather it was to illustrate the sphere in the place I was at. Ideally it would have a much shallower depth of field and include the full shadow at the base, or be shot at a time other than high noon such that the sphere was better illuminated. It is true that it would be nice to have a picture of a sphere in its "original" position, but given how old they are it is absolutely ridiculous to think that any of the known ones are in the position the creators left them in. Given how relatively rare a phenomenon and how little studied they are I find it highly unlikely that a free image will be found of higher quality than this, barring someone taking a photo for this express purpose. As for it being overexposed, I will have to respectfully disagree. This photo accurately depicts the coloration of the sphere. The grass and sidewalk are over exposed, but the sphere is not. I have seen featured pics both much better than this and slightly worse. I think it is a good picture and one of my best from that time in my life, but shows many flaws of the beginning photographer. I didn't nominate it myself as I have taken much better pictures and now have much better skills. I don't particularly want to oppose my first nominated picture, however, so I neutrally offer this commentary. If I should happen to be in San Jose again (unlikely) I promise to take a much better picture. &mdash;WAvegetarian&bull; CONTRIBUTIONS TALK &bull; EMAIL &bull; 04:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Mikeo 11:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)