Talk:Gold Hill, Shaftesbury

Choice of image

The following discussion has been copied from my own talk page (User talk:PaleCloudedWhite), where it originally took place. The discussion followed the addition and removal of an image on 19th January 2012. The discussion has been very slightly amended here, to remove text which could be confusing in this context. [This notice posted by PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)]

The discussion proceeded as follows:

There are a number of reasons why my picture has more quality than the previous one (taken in bright sunshine but without any black whatsoever). It has to do with the quality of the lens and the camera, the amount of pixels, contrast, sharpness and the improvements while processing the picture in Adobe Photoshop CS5. I hope you are somebody who can be persuaded by arguments. If I can't convince you, check with somebody who knows about photography. No hard feelings though... :-) Thundercloud (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Whereas in principal I can always be persuaded by arguments, when considering images my concern is always the appearance of the image, not the means by which it was produced, and although it is true that my monitor is currently not reproducing colours faithfully (leaving my judgement of images a little weakened), I still feel that your pic is too dark. Furthermore I prefer the composition of the pre-existing image - in your pic the houses are more distant and in my view the wall on the right is too dominant. However in a "one versus one" situation such as this, it is probably advisable to canvass a bit of extra opinion, so I shall seek that from some of the other WikiProject Dorset members. Thankyou for your politeness. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

a picture taken without sunshine is always darker... It represents the amount of light present at the time the picture was taken. For me, the abbey wall is an important part of Gold Hill, but this is only my opinion... :-) Thundercloud (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with PCW here. You are right, Thundercloud, the Abbey wall is important, but this is difficult to convey in one image. But, in my lowly instamatic opinion, that second image is "well mingin" (technical term) - do you have one that could replace that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) I also agree that the wall is an important component of Gold Hill, but the effect on the composition in Thundercloud's pic is to draw the eye to a point at the foot of the wall's buttresses (where the lines of the street and the wall converge), whereas in the pic in the sunshine the eye is drawn to the line of houses. Also the pic in the sunshine more closely resembles the classic image of Gold Hill, and therefore is in my view also preferable on that account. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with Gold Hill myself, so I can't comment on which photo has a better composition. I will say, however, that I think the brighter photo looks better in the page than the darker photo. It's a lot easier to pick out features within the brighter photo. That being said, I think the darker photo is generally superior at full resolution. Could it perhaps be lightened to look better in the thumbnail? Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that I prefer the top image. It is, to me, more pleasing visually but perhaps more importantly, it is instantly recognisable as Gold Hill whereas the lower image is not. The less seen view from the bottom is an interesting one however and I don't see why an article on Gold Hill can't have both. Ykraps (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ykraps, thanks for your input, however the 2 images being discussed are not currently both displayed on the page (ie it is not a choice between the top and bottom images, but rather between the 2 different versions of the top image, one of which is currently displayed, but the other is the image as uploaded by User:Thundercloud, which is viewable only in a previous saved version of the page). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

My mistake! I've got to go to work now but will take a look when I get back.--Ykraps (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

My aim is to reflect reality and the weather conditions at the given time. I try to discuss the "quality" of the picture (less sunshine=less brightness) and a picture with much more resolution always includes more detail. Thundercloud (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I like Thundercloud's image too but not as much, sorry Thundercloud. One reason for using images is to convey additional information (and there is more information in Thundercloud's photograph) but another reason is to attract people to the article and a 'prettier' picture will do that more successfully. I agree with Martinevans123, we could do with a better view from the bottom if you have one.--Ykraps (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

PS I understand how disappointing it is to have one of your photos replaced as it happened to me, for reasons I still can't fathom today.

I think the brighter image is the better option for the lead thumbnailed image. I find the wall intrudes a bit too much into Thundercloud's image and is a little bit distracting. There's a collection of images on the commons so I've created a category (which includes Thundercloud's image) and added the link to the article. Barret (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't regret the replacement of my picture - I've stated my case :-) and as long as there is exchanges of opinions and reasoning, I don't see why my view should overrule everybody's else's. Sorry for my poor English... Thundercloud (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

uw Engels is better dan mijn Nederlands--Ykraps (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I must say that I am (perhaps even more) disappointed by the current lower image, with it's E-reg car (is that a VW Passat Estate?) so beautifully framed. It looks like a classic image of the 1970s, but was loaded as recently as 2005. Would Thundercloud have something bright enough to replace this I wonder? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a Passat, and - though this is wandering off the subject a little - I wonder how easy it was (or was not) for the owner to get it into position. It's a long time since I last visited Gold Hill, but from memory I cannot recall it being possible for vehicles to access the street from the top, hence the Passat must have come up from the bottom. Although memory tells me that the gradient does ease further down the hill, I still wouldn't want to attempt to turn a vehicle around halfway up it, so the driver must have reversed it up from the bottom (which actually makes sense - who'd want to reverse down a hill as steep as that?) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well that's an old(ish) car (registered between 1 August 1987 and 31 July 1988). In my opinion it makes the image look even older. Am surprised that we are allowed to use any image of a car with its plate fully displayed and not pixelated out (like in Google Street view). But surely there are better, and more recent, images available via Commons? For me, cars just don't seem to fit with the classic idea of Shaftesbury, do they? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about the privacy issue from the point of view of number plates - I wonder if anyone's ever complained? Actually there are a few other 'looking up' Gold Hill pics on Commons, though in my view they're mostly lacking in one way or another (either too gloomy, or too dominated by the road). There's one brightish pic that's not too bad, though it's got a few tourists in view - don't know whether that contravenes privacy concerns..... There's also one which shows the wall on the left and the church at the top, though the cottages are not presented to best effect..... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, tourists don't have registration plates (usually), so I think they are fair game. Maybe we should encourage our Dutch friend back to Dorset on an non-Thundercloudy day. He has been very understanding (and his English is quite excellent, as far as I can see). There are already 25 to choose from in Barret's category. These three all seem better: [1],[2], [3]. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(Following image change) I agree with your ultimate choice of option 3; although option 2 shows some of the old abbey wall and the church at the top, the contrast is very high (it looks very black on the right), and the cottages at the top look almost modern. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not opposed to modern-looking cottages, if that's what they are. I think the composition in option (2) is very good and less of a mere mirror-image of the lead image. If only we could get one like that taken on a duller day... (and we have a few clouds in this discussion thread who might be able to help!) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I notice that in older pics (eg [4], which dates from 1965), the cottages towards the top are not shrouded in vegetation; I wonder if the residents today are trying to hide from all the camera-wielding tourists? (I love the atmosphere of that 1965 pic - it's from another era, and totally lacks pretension, looking quite agricultural and not pretty-pretty.) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed an excellent image, telegraph wires notwithstanding. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)