Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Surfing

Surfing



 * Reason:Surfing is a very popular activity and I do not believe we have any FP for this kind of sport.
 * Proposed caption:A surfer in Santa Cruz, California
 * Articles this image appears in:surfing
 * Creator:Mbz1

Oppose Poor lighting. I also agree with Debivort re:not close enough. Waves are all well and good but to illustrate surfing I'd want to see something a bit closer or a different angle. I'm not saying it necessarily should be nominated by I think this (free) image would make a better candidate. And no it's not what you're thinking! It is a better candidate thanks to the much better lighting and composition. This one is also a better option --Fir0002 05:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator Mbz1 18:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * weak oppose - subject is comparatively small, and details are lost in the shadow, a different time of day would probably fix this. Debivort 23:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks no matter what time of the day I take the pictures there are always some shadows. I just like to mention that, when we talk about surfing the wave is as much as a subject as a surfer is. I could have used much bigger zoom to bring a surfer closer, but I did not do it in purpose. I wanted to show the wave. Thank you for your vote and comment, Debivort.--Mbz1 04:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
 * Comment. I have recaptioned the pictures as Original 1 - 4; they were captioned as Edits, which they're not as they're all different pictures. --jjron 08:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Puddyglum 17:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC) -- Chris B  •  talk  14:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose all. Sorry, have to agree with above re poor lighting - the sun's just in the wrong position. I'm not overly taken with either of Fir0002's linked images either, but I see what he means, I don't think surfing photos are that hard to get and I reckon a Wikipedian can get one. Even the first image in the surfing article is clearer, though obviously not up to FPC quality standards. --jjron 09:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I still prefer my images to the ones that were mentioned by Fir0002 and Jjron (not because what you think lol). In my opinion to show surfing (please notice surfing not a surfer) is important to show the power of the wave and, if possible to show a movemet of a surfer like in the last nominated image. I agree that images of surfers are common and I share the concern about lighting.  Thank you all for taking your time to write the comments and to vote.Jjron, thank you for recapturing the images. --Mbz1 13:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
 * Weak oppose Per Devibort. I think the lighting isn't as big of a deal as the detail that is missing.  Just a little too blurry.  When you open up full-size and view the surfer, there really isn't that much detail there.  Better than all other surfer photos in WP, though.
 * Thank you,Puddyglum. It is why I nominated the images because in my opinion they are better than any other one on WP so far.--Mbz1 18:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
 * Comment - 110mm focal length on a Digital Rebel XTi? (Assuming the EXIF data is correct...) I'd be really careful getting that close with a body (and possibly a lens) that isn't weather-sealed to resist moisture, sand, salt, etc. I believe most surfing photos are taken at around 400mm, which is a more comfortable distance (and more expensive lens!). Just a tip. --Peter 20:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)