Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool

Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2010 at 01:23:38 (UTC)

Original - The Pavilion atop a stone outcropping at the Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool in the Lincoln Park Zoo

Reason: This is a high EV image
Articles in which this image appears: Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool
Alfred Caldwell
Lincoln Park, Chicago
National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago
List of National Historic Landmarks in Illinois
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Others
Creator: flickr user Digitalley

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regrettably it's a good photograph but the image is quite dramatically out of focus and there isn't enough resolution to downsample it to correct for that and keep it within FP guidelines. Interesting building and setting though, so I would of supported if it wasn't so out of focus. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per raeky. Interesting subject, nice angle, too dark, way too out of focus. Shortcomings not fixable. Greg L (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The EV is very high, but the focus isn't there and the reflection of the shrubs in the background draws the attention of the viewer, this could have been avoided by photographing the subject from a different angle (standing slightly more to the left)--Iankap99 (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose as per all above, out of focus... Gazhiley (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also love this image, but as others have said when viewed at full size the BG looks distorted and even the foreground. If you can sharpen it up a bit you've definitely got my support. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was under the impression that the problems are not repairable. Should I take this to the WP:GL?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The focus is irreparable... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. When downsampled 50%, it is still out of focus. Greg L (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Downsampled to 800x533 would this stand a chance at VPC?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1000px by height or width is the minimum I think. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the minimum here at FPC, I am asking about WP:VPC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't answer that question, at WP:VPC there is no minimum, 800x533 COULD pass, but then again down-sampling just to make it look a bit sharper would be looked down upon there as much as it is here. And at VPC we weight MUCH more on EV, and the EV concerns I listed below would come into play. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unmodified would be my preferred vote on VPC, since we're not worried much about technical issues but more EV issues and slightly blurry doesn't dramatically hurt the EV. The only issue I would have there is that the image focuses mostly on the structure and not the pond, and I would consider an image showing more of the pond higher EV since although the structure is a main feature of the lily pool, it is afterall the lily pool the article is about. Not sure the image contributes alot of EV to the other articles though. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it'd be hard to retake this with better camera settings (higher DOF, better lighting) and improved composition. If you're only thinking VP, is this something you could go down and do yourself Tony? --jjron (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I use a point and shoot Canon PowerShot TX1. To date, I have not gotten a VP credit with this camera.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I help you with some baseball pitcher picture that you took a couple of years back which became an FP? What was that done with? --jjron (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Stinks because the photograph has fantastic EV, but enlarged it's really too out of focus to be an FP. Amphy (talk)
Comment I don't want to oppose since that would just be piling on but I'd also like to comment on how sad it is that this does not meet the standards since it has such great EV. Cat-five - talk 19:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest speedy close to free up space, clearly won't pass from here. --jjron (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]