Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/TFS Firefighter

Toronto Firefighter

 * Reason:While I discovered that either I suck or the FinePix S9500 has a disappointing amount of noise (or both!), this image seemed to stand out in composition - providing what I (immodestly) feel is an excellent balance of an "in-action, unposed" shot of a firefighter, without being a "busy snapshot with distracting backgrounds" - wisps of smoke. They add atmosphere, without distraction.
 * Proposed caption:A Canadian firefighter pauses to assess the situation, in Toronto, Ontario.
 * Articles this image appears in:Firefighter, Toronto Fire Services
 * Creator:User:Sherurcij


 * Support as nominator Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 08:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support i really like it, maybe others will oppose because its not showing his full body or theres no fire (i may be being a bit cynical) but from my point of view it is excellent, well taken, great composition and the noise isnt that bad -- Ch il dzy  ¤  Ta l k  08:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support A bit artsy, but of respectable technical quality. I don't find the noise to be too bad, but the blown highlight on the helmet is somewhat distracting.--HereToHelp 12:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Mild oppose Nothing terrible about the picture, but I'm not sure it represents the best possible. One the tech side, there are slightly blown highlights in the helmet and back reflector. On the encyclopedic side, it doesn't illustrate the firefighter uniform or gear particularly well (I agree it doesn't have to be a posed full-front shot, but something a bit more revealing would be better). On the aesthetic side, I think it's pretty good; the smoke is so thick and indistinct that you can't really see what he's in front of. It doesn't complicate the picture, but on the other hand it kind of leaves it a bit drab and unexciting. Matt Deres 14:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose not very encyclopaedic and bad composition. It doesn't show the whole body (fireman's gear), nor what they do.--Svetovid 16:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * see i wasnt be cynical..  Ch il dzy  ¤  Ta l k  20:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I read your comment ;). Seriously, this picture basically shows me that a fireman is human and wears a helmet and nothing more. It's not even technically perfect.--Svetovid 12:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose The composition is not too bad, but there are a few quality issues (noise). And I also like the added drama in Image:Firefighting exercise.jpg --Fir0002 07:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I like the photo, but it's a bit lacking in 'enc' - there's very little context here. I'm not one of those that demands every claw of every animal to be visible, but a bit more of the subject, or a bit more background (eg, a burning house rather than just the implied presence of smoke) would make this more compelling. As is, it's just sort of a guy with a hat one. If we could see as much as in Image:TFS Training Exercise.JPG, it would be great. Stevage 04:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, I actually much prefer Image:TFS Training Exercise.JPG, but I felt it offered less - plus I know some people don't like deliberate "blow-outs", though you have to admit they're better than accidental ones ;) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 09:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Multi colored noise and artifacts possibly caused by high ISO speed or post processing Bleh999 13:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't much care about the "failure" to include the whole body.  I just don't see any context at all. Unschool 07:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Unschool and Stevage I don't see what this is illustrating. Whole body or action would be more encyclopedic if less arty. --Dhartung | Talk 18:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 09:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)