Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Covent Garden Street Performance

Covent Garden Street Performance edit

A crowd is entertained by a performer in front of Covent Garden, London

Edit

Edit02

This is a segmented panorama stiched from around 10 images vertically. I like it for a number of reasons. I was really quite happy with the stiching, as there are (as far as I can tell) no stitching faults or even duplication or movement of people between frames, the perspective is interesting, showing the performer in the context of the crowd and the Covent Garden markets. I know that some people may not like the curved (cylindrical) perspective, but this panorama has an angle of view of approximately 160 degrees and is therefore unfortunately difficult to avoid.

Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Technically brilliant, as all Diliff panoramas, but somehow this doesn't get that "ooh-aah" effect your other shots produce... --Janke | Talk 12:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair comment. :) I know its a 'messy' panorama and not a particularly beautiful scene, but I did like the way there was something interesting happening all the way across the frame. For interest's sake, here is an image of the interior of Covent Garden looking towards the courtyard in the panorama. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a nice shot, and obviously you're very good at taking panoramas, I'm just not sure I dig the lighting in this shot. --Life is like a box of chocolates 19:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sort of agree with Janke, it's a great, clear shot (and nfi how you avoid stitching errors or clones!) and intertesting in the detail - but the shot at any reasonable resolution isn't that remarkable, and the late evening London sun is a bit of a shame. Could you not cheat and brighten it up a bit? Would make a good wall poster in any case. :) Stevage 13:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I did just notice one stitch error and one clone.. They're very sneakily hidden. It would be pretty difficult to describe to you which person it is, though. ;) You are right - it doesn't display well as a thumbnail or even anything downsampled enough to fit on the screen, but the detail is there. I don't think its particularly dark though. It could be brightened but it would probably only look a bit washed out. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, just found them - guy in a dark jacket walking through the crowd from left to right. Stevage 20:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Very gray, drab, uninteresting. The curvature only hurts it more. (That it can't be avoided does not excuse the fault.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This one is very impressive when viewed at full resolution, but at a size that fits on most monitors it seems mundane and dark. Panos that impress even at reduced size tend to be those of a more dramatic subject. Maybe a single shot showing the performer in focus in the foreground and a subset of the crowd slightly OOF in the background, reacting to the performance, would work better. Or, the same kind of thing with the performer slightly OOF and audience members in focus, if their reactions were particularly animated. -- moondigger 14:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this super picture more every time I look at it, and like most panoramas it is best appreciated at full size. The flat London (evening?) light lets the thumbnail down a little, but the technical virtuosity is astounding and I've never seen so many Londoners smiling at once :-) Diliff, you have created a rod for your own back. Can anyone imagine this picture getting even a single oppose vote as recently as a year ago? ~ Veledan • Talk 22:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad you see this image the way I see it. I think that different pictures need slightly different criteria to be judged against. The scene isn't intrinsically pretty, the lighting isn't that great (of course it is gray and drab - this is London! ;) ), and isn't simple enough to look good in a thumbnail, but if you were to look at this image in the context of its strengths, you'd see it as a number of interesting subjects (the markets themselves, the people, and the entertainer )coming together to form a difficult composition. What I'm trying to say is that not all FPs are naturally beautiful, or historically meaningful, or whatever, and we should see the image for what it is, not what it isn't. If that isn't enough for a support, thats fine, but it seems like others were using the wrong criteria for an image of this type. :) Ah well, in the end, an image doesn't have to be a FP to be useful anyway! Its easy to forget that an image isn't hung, drawn and quartered for failing FPC. It still contributes to the article regardless of its success. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see FPs according to this formula: pretty + encyclopaedic = FP. This image, which I like a lot, isn't particularly pretty, and it's not hugely encyclopaedic - it adds something to the Covent Garden article, but looking at the image doesn't tell you "what is Covent Garden"? Which of the three big buildings in the mid-ground is part of Covent Garden? Is the square with the people part of it? It would probably illustrate something like street performing better. And it's nice, and very well executed, but not *pretty* - even in London, the sun occasionally shines. Don't take it badly ;) Stevage 14:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the formula in general, but there are occasional exceptions. As for it not 'defining' Covent Garden visually, its pretty difficult for any one image to do that. Covent Garden is technically just a location that happens to have a market in the middle, not a specific building. I totally understand that sometimes a subject is just too difficult to portray in a FP-worthy way and I can accept that. I'm not taking it that badly - I just enjoy the banter. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support as above. -Aled D 13:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with the above. Nice seen but the lighting is pretty ordinary. I've uploaded some edits, but I still don't think they are that good. --Fir0002 00:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support second edit. The lighting, as mentioned before, is mediocre, however, the subject is interesting and so is the festive atmosphere. Congrats on becoming an FP photo! Garrett Rock
Oppose, the subject of the picture is one guy off to the left, or a big distorted open space in the middle? Night Gyr 14:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither, but thanks for your comments. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's an interesting scene, but the composition suffers from the panorama method. It devotes as much space to photographing all the stones of the square as it does to the people watching, and it only looks good if you view portions of it at full resolution. I think if you used just one of the original pictures, or cropped the panorama, you could have a tighter focus and an excellent picture of a street performance. Night Gyr 21:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit one. Festive atmosphere/Interesting Subject. Advanced 17:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted -- moondigger 02:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]