Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Temple of Vesta

Temple of Vesta


The picture is a particularly bold and vibrant one. It is eye-catching, and encourages the viewer to read the attached article (Temple of Vesta). It is also very clear and striking, and perfectly illustrates what remains of the temple. It was created by me, Jdhowens90.


 * Nominate and support. - JDH Owenstalk 14:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 *  ( &minus; ) Oppose Back lit photo - doesn't work. --Fir0002 09:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. To my mind, the bright sunlight from behind enhances this picture, providing sharp contrast, and making the focus stand out like a silhouette. However, the scene is also well enough lit from the front that no detail is lost from the bright light behind the remains. JDH Owenstalk 11:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with you there JD. I don't have a problem with the back lighting, and it can enhance the photo by drawing your eye to the foreground. What I do find distracting, though, is the distortion that a really wide-angle portrait-framed shot gets when looking at something architectural like that. Unfortunately it can't be easily corrected, short of re-framing it from further back, anyway. Diliff 15:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I see your point about the foreground being detailed (normally, backlighting makes the subject go dark), although since it doesn't really look like a silhouette either with the focus completely dark, doesn't the end effect mean that it just looks like a picture with a washed out sky? Enochlau 11:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I would have to agree with Fir0002. Also, the framing is a bit odd. Enochlau 10:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unfortunately, this framing is the result of the dynamic angle. It's physically impossible to frame it as well as I might have liked yet still capture the ruins in an interesting and unique way. JDH Owenstalk 11:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Has potential but as mentioned above, the framing and angle makes it interesting but not as encyclopedic and clear as it could be. Diliff 15:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons above. --ScottyBoy900Q ∞ 23:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Odd perspective, bad lighting. We basically just see a collumn with the bottom cut off. What makes this thing stand out as a noteworthy temple? The picture doesn't tell me. --Dschwen 16:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - on the full size image the top of the temple has strange fringing where it meets the sky as if the temple has been added to the background afterwards. I doubt it has been, but it is distracting and unsightly nonetheless. --bodnotbod 16:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. It looks like chromatic aberration to me. Most lenses exhibit that in areas of great contrast. I don't really think that it is that distracting or ugly. I've seen a lot worse. Diliff 21:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 02:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

