Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Trapshooting

Trapshooting








My grandfather took this photo of men trap shooting in Ohio. I've dated it to 1939 based on the handwritten dates on other photos that were stamped with the same development batch number. It is possible that this was at the Grand American which used to be held in Vandalia, Ohio, because I've found several photos from later years that were identified at that event, though the setting doesn't look quite the same. I think the composition is rather amazing, both at illustrating the activity, and the dynamic formed by the diagonals (such as the angle of the wood plank on the ground lined by the empty ammo boxes joinging with the trap machine and cords). Not the best exposure, but what can you do; it was kind of hard to use the zone system with a Brownie.


 * Nominate and support. - Postdlf 19:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * oppose its nice that your grandfather took it but there is no need for this photo, it offers little historical content and is quite small and black and white, sorry. Ch ild zy  ( Talk 19:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Re "little historical content," the once-common practice depicted of using a human puller to launch the target by pulling a lever is now obsolete; most trap shooting clubs now use voice-activated launchers, or ones that release the target by a mere push of a button. It is still a tradition for the shooter to shout "pull" when ready because of the prior role of the puller.  Re: "no need," it's the lead (and only) image in its parent article, and it illustrates the old practice well in what I believe to be a very well composed image (particularly for a snapshot).  I didn't post it because of who took it, though I'm glad you think that's "nice."  Postdlf 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And as for Childzy's comment that he's opposing 'because it's black and white' - I think you fail to understand that being black and white, sepia toned or a colour photograph has almost no bearing on whether a picture survives the FPC process. There are many reasons why a picture might not be in fantastical modern colour - not least of which this photograph was taken in 1939 on a less than state of the art camera. If you think it detracts from the photograph that it's monochrome, we'd love to see you tint it for us. —Vanderdecken&there4; ∫ξφ 10:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Shut the hell up you, have you honestly got a problem with me. Ch ild zy  ( Talk 19:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Historical and informative. Cab02 22:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Useful to the article, but its minor historical value is not enough to override its technical deficiencies.  Blown highlights (puller's shirt blends with the sky), resolution below FP guidelines, slightly odd composition. -- moondigger 23:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Of course FPC is not restricting to black and white photographs, but this photograph is only significant or historical to the family of those in the photo, nothing more. FP is not a family album. -- AJ24 00:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What a remarkably condescending comment. I stated the family connection just as a fact of authorship to explain why I have the right to post it.  This is not a picture of anyone in my family, just a picture that happened to be taken by a family member that I've used to illustrate the article on trap shooting.  I certainly understand if someone disagrees that it meets FA criteria, but your comment was carelessly made and insulting.  Postdlf 01:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If my comments came off to you as "insulting", then I most definitely apologize. -- AJ24 03:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that a lot of the comments above appear incredibly condescending, belittling and insulting. He only mentioned that his grandfather took it in passing, and the 'Wikipedia is not a family photo' album comment was completely uncalled for. Credit to AJ24, though, you did apologize. I can find only two points wrong with this photo - one, blown highlight's on the puller's shirt; and two, that its longest dimension is 800 pixels. Although FPC criteria state that a picture should be at least 1000 pixels down its longest side, this is not a set in stone requirement, especially for historical photographs where it may not be possible to acquire a higher resolution scan. Therefore I give you my [[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] Support, and I may have an edit up in the next few hours. And I would like to remind all future voters on this pic that we are not commenting on the uploader, nominator, or their way of phrasing the nomination. We are trying to acheive consensus on whether this image is decent quality considering its origins, whether it adds to the articles that contain it, and whether it qualifies as one of Wikipedia's best examples of how a picture can paint a thousand words. —Vanderdecken&there4; ∫ξφ 10:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit submitted. —Vanderdecken&there4; ∫ξφ 13:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What little historical significance this picture has is not enough to overcome faults.say1988 16:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, although if you could re-scan at a higher resolution that would be useful. Wholeheartedly agree with Vanderdecken's comments - all too often, the tone of responses on FPC is unhelpful and condescending. There also seems to be a tendency only to ascribe 'historical significance' to images of wartime or disasters - we could be missing out on a lot of great illustrative, encyclopaedic images if we equate 'Featured' with 'Dramatic'. --Yummifruitbat 17:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit 2 submitted, also to fix the highlight problem. I'll see if a higher res scan will improve it, but the original print is rather small.  Postdlf 18:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I like Edit 2 better, since the sky no longer blends with the white shirt. That makes it a better image to illustrate its article, but it still isn't FP material for me. -- moondigger 20:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Higher resolution edit 3 submitted. Postdlf 21:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It doesn't show what he's actually shooting, and is not the best demonstration of trapshooting that could be found. Schizmatic 23:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the image doesn't substantially enhance trap shooting, and in fact, if we had a more recent photo, that would be better. Here, the age of the photo is a definite minus. And it's not especially informative - being able to see the device that actually launches the clay pidgeon (or even some clay pidgeons on the ground) would be better. And I haven't even gotten to the blurriness yet...Stevage 05:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support, probably mostly because we don't have a plethora of images on trapshooting. I don't think old is worse...but... I would probably delist if we got a much better photo. gren グレン 01:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can anything be done about the "stuff" in the sky on edit 3? I can't quite tell if it's film grain or artifacting, but it's distracting. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose--Vircabutar 21:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 09:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)