Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Graves at Arlington on Memorial Day

Graves at Arlington on Memorial Day


I think it is a good picture of a notable place (Arlington National Cemetary) and the yearly decoration of the gravestones on memorial day (but I am a little bias being the photographer). Plus, I just wanted to get some feedback on what makes a FP.


 * Nominated by: Remember (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, for what makes an FP, go here. Thanks for your contribution. Elephantissimo (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Welcome to the Picture peer review! Let me start by saying that I fell a little stuck on this picture. I feel that the composition is kind of odd. The only part really in focus is the front-most grave. As you get further back, they are progressively more blurred. This normally wouldn't be a problem, but a large part of the picture consists of them. The subject matter is definitely compelling though. Keep going with what you're doing because this is a good picture.
 * Thanks for the comment. I actually did the narrow depth of field on purpose because I thought the composition was more impressive that way, but I can see how others may not care for it.  Any other comments or reasons why this couldn't be a FP? Remember (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're good otherwise. Elephantissimo (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This type of picture is emotionally compelling, so there is much potential, but I too have comments on the composition. If I could rearrange things at whim: the frontmost grave would not be obsured so much by a flag, making the inscription more legible (but maybe you don't want to do that -- I'm not sure); the lighting would be softer and not have the odd transition from shady to sunny; the tree in the background wouldn't be there; I'd crop out the flag and greenery on the right border that's cut off.  I'm not sure of the best answer re depth of field; I think I like what you did.  Fletcher (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Part of me likes the idea that the front of the grave is obscured (so it is anonymous) but part of me thinks it might be better with a clear namename (I keep debating about this).  It was largely irrelevant since I couldn't move the flag anyway.  I agree that the shady to sunny issue is not what I would have wanted, but you work with what you have. Feel free to edit the photo if you think you can make a better version.  I have other different compositions that I may post when I have time. Remember (talk)


 * Would tend to agree with Fletcher. I don't think the DOF is an issue, you've handled that well. It just seems that this was probably not captured at the best time of day due to the harsh contrast between shadows and sunny areas. Composition could probably be a little stronger, I'd second most of Fletcher's concerns and possibly add a couple more (even that twig/leaves I think it is in front of the "Agnes" headstone would probably raise some grumbles, with the suggestion that it should have been moved before the photo was taken). Sorry, I don't mean to be overly critical, but people at FPC are pretty fussy. --jjron (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Staging the photograph would have been somewhat disrespectful given the fact that you aren't suppose to walk on the graves so there are a number of issues that I just had to work with. Remember (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's easier to shoot graveyards in dusk or dawn light, with your camera on a tripod, and a long exposure. You can try for the shallow depth of field effect, also, but I think even the front grave is not quite in focus.  You might try shooting them straight on, also.  In my area, the Scouts and Legion put the flags up the night before, so shooting right at dawn is possible, if you want the flags.  I shoot military graveyards from the roads.  I shoot at dawn and dusk, so I can shoot differently lit graves, and I shoot from level with the tombstones on the road, to slight above and below, depending upon the lay of the land.  I think this image could have enough encyclopedic value that it would be worth reshooting.  I prefer a landscape format.  I think the color is excellent in spite of the bright sunlight.  --Blechnic (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the input. In the future I may try to shoot this again with your suggestions in mind. Remember (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Question - Should I even try and run this by FP for more comments and possible promotion or would that be a burden on FP review. Remember (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the focus issue puts it out of range as a FP. In addition, this is the page for getting feedback, FPC is for pictures that you think meet all of the FP criteria already.  --Blechnic (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it being a 'burden' on the FP process, but I would be 99% sure of the result. In effect, if you would like more feedback on the picture then you could look at the FPC process to provide that, but honestly don't go in expecting a promotion. And the feedback is likely to be less informative and more brutal than that given here, so I'm not sure what you'd be gaining. However, if you actually feel it has a chance, even if only slim, then I always say don't die wondering :-). --jjron (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I find the transition from shade to sun to be distracting, which is basically the same problem that I had with [[Image:Kaaba mirror edit jj.jpg|35px]] this former FPC candidate.  Spikebrennan (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconder:

