Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tour Eiffel

Tour Eiffel, Paris



 * Nominate and support. -  T HE P ROMENADER  10:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment compared to the other two ET featured pics, this one is lacking a lot. The clouds are way overexposed (probably blown out?), leaving the tower itself lacking any kind of colour or detail. Much better to take this kind of photo with the light behind you, or preferably to one side. The sun behind the tower is a recipe for disaster. That said, there are good points - the grass looks good, the water and statues in the foreground are a nice touch, there aren't any tourists doing anything ugly, and the clouds are generally quite attractive (certainly compared to a plain white sky). If you'd taken two shots on different exposure settings, we could combine the two, to have a well exposed tower and city, and less exposed clouds. But as it stands, the glare totally kills what could be a very nice image. Stevage 12:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Stevage's comment. The sky kills it, it just dominates the picture too much and detracts too much from the tower. Besides, there's already an Eiffel Tower FP, so to get another one through would need something really special. I like the reflections in the pool in front though. --jjron 13:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Personally I don't like to get too 'photoshoppy' on my images - I'll see what I can do for the 'cloud glare' but if that doesn't appeal, then let's drop it. BTW, 'already a FP pic like this' is not an argument - otherwise this place would never see anything new.  T HE P ROMENADER  14:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, we'll never see anything new if we keep putting through different pics of the same thing ;). I'm all for better pics of the same thing, or alternates, e.g., a night shot. --jjron 14:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the 'better' part. I hesitated to upload this 'version' until I saw how through how many pages the 'original' was used - consider this a 'morning variation' from the place in Paris to take the tower. Don't forget also that the entire esplanade was designed to this 'perspective' end... which is kind of obvious from the photo : )  T HE P ROMENADER  19:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you may have to start getting photoshoppy - it's fair to say that most FPC's go through a bit of photoshop before they get accepted. There's a bias against cloning out people or defects, but levels and sharpness amongst other setting should certainly be tweaked to improve the image. Fwiw, I wasn't arguing against the image on the basis that there are already other featured pics of the Eiffel Tower. I'm saying that the other ones are *better*, and that they're the standard this should reach before we accept it. WRT to your edit, I can't compare against the old one, but I gather you have darkened the clouds directly behind the tower. Better, but still very glarey in the left. But still, compared to this, it's just got nothing to recommend it - exactly the same angle, similar time of day (late morning rather than sunrise). Even this tells us more about the tower. Stevage 15:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Clear your caches: Edited version in place now.  T HE P ROMENADER  14:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - this is not a very striking image of the ET, agree with Stevage. -- P199 15:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I could understand why some people find this picture uninteresting, but I actually like it. First, the setting is almost geometrically perfect, everything seems so straight. Second, I actually find the picture striking, there's something about the sky and the lighting that I really like, it gives the tower a sense of greatness. And finally, OK, this might be stupid, but although the picture seems to be taken from some small level of altitude, it makes the background city look tiny and the tower huge at the same time.--Enano275 01:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.png|15px]] Oppose I've no problem with multiple FP's of the same subject but they have to be at least of similar quality. And IMO the exisiting one is far superior. --Fir0002 style="color:#C6CACC; background:#F8FCFF">www 09:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The currently featured ones are better. enochlau (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. A bit dark, but still a good photo.--Hezzy 01:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. blah photo and sky is not very good. jmills74
 * Oppose. Weak compared to existing FPs. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Swollib 08:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Mikeo 19:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)