Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Glastonbury Tor showing the terraces
Glastonbury Tor showing the terraces edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 May 2014 at 13:49:10 (UTC)
- Reason
- Clear illustration the terracing around Glastonbury Tor.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Glastonbury Tor
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
- Creator
- Rodw
- Support as nominator – — Rod talk 13:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - Hill's not in focus. The focus seems to be on the foreground. Composition is lovely, but we can't really fix that focus issue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry, I agree with Crisco, it's quite soft. The view shows the terraces reasonably well, which is interesting, but at the expense of the view of the tower. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Considering how it's used, though, I think that has good EV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- True, I guess I was thinking about it as merely a view of the Tor and didn't consider that the terracing is a notable enough feature. But given how much is written about the terracing in the article, I suppose it's a legitimate subject to illustrate. Still, I'm not sure that it's a good enough image in this case. There are many great images showing the terracing on Google image search but sadly all the good ones seem to be aerial photos, so it wouldn't be easy to replicate. All of the ground based images showing the terraces seem to be taken from almost exactly this angle so it could be that this is as good as we can realistically get, but it's still an awkward angle IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- I had my quadcopter camera with me to take aerial photos but it was too windy to fly it. I think reason all the pics are from the same angle is because its the only place you can legally get access to that side of the tor & the topography on the other side means the terraces, the origin of which has been debated, can't be seen.— Rod talk 14:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Most quadcopters also exhibit too much vibration to take sharp photos though (unless you spend some serious money on a good stabilised camera mount), not to mention a lot 'kit quadcopters' are set up to carry an 'action cam' video camera like a GoPro which are usually fisheye and not ideal for quality still photography. Having said that, I'd be interested to see what kind of aerial photography you can get from it. I've considered getting a hex/octocopter capable of carrying a DSLR but it's just a bit cost-prohibitive, not to mention arguably illegal without a license since if you are shooting with Wikipedia in mind, it could possibly be considered 'commercial photography' as the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses are not non-commercial. I do wonder though what defines 'commercial' though. Money exchanging hands? Intent? Anyway, I'm digressing! Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've heard the comment about the fish eye lens before but have put a few videos etc on commons (see Cabot Tower, Ashen Hill Barrow Cemetery, Stanton Drew stone circles great circle and north east circle etc which I think help to get the concepts of the sites invlved). I try to comply with CAA rules and as I receive no money, or other payment, consider it non-commercial.— Rod talk 16:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Most quadcopters also exhibit too much vibration to take sharp photos though (unless you spend some serious money on a good stabilised camera mount), not to mention a lot 'kit quadcopters' are set up to carry an 'action cam' video camera like a GoPro which are usually fisheye and not ideal for quality still photography. Having said that, I'd be interested to see what kind of aerial photography you can get from it. I've considered getting a hex/octocopter capable of carrying a DSLR but it's just a bit cost-prohibitive, not to mention arguably illegal without a license since if you are shooting with Wikipedia in mind, it could possibly be considered 'commercial photography' as the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses are not non-commercial. I do wonder though what defines 'commercial' though. Money exchanging hands? Intent? Anyway, I'm digressing! Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- I had my quadcopter camera with me to take aerial photos but it was too windy to fly it. I think reason all the pics are from the same angle is because its the only place you can legally get access to that side of the tor & the topography on the other side means the terraces, the origin of which has been debated, can't be seen.— Rod talk 14:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- True, I guess I was thinking about it as merely a view of the Tor and didn't consider that the terracing is a notable enough feature. But given how much is written about the terracing in the article, I suppose it's a legitimate subject to illustrate. Still, I'm not sure that it's a good enough image in this case. There are many great images showing the terracing on Google image search but sadly all the good ones seem to be aerial photos, so it wouldn't be easy to replicate. All of the ground based images showing the terraces seem to be taken from almost exactly this angle so it could be that this is as good as we can realistically get, but it's still an awkward angle IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Considering how it's used, though, I think that has good EV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)