Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Aerial perspective

Aerial perspective

**Alternative 2** – Another alternative, taken at the same spot as the original

File:Atmos persp beacons enhanced.jpg

ZOMG NPOV Alternative Alternative with greatly enhanced encyclopaedicity

Reason: This picture is a clear, and beautiful, illustration of the atmospheric perspective effect in photography.
Articles this image appears in: Aerial perspective, Serra da Estrela
Creator: Joaquim Alves Gaspar

Support as nominator — Alvesgaspar 15:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — you're right, it does illustrate the atmospheric perspective very well, but there's little else that would make it FP worthy. Too little detail, and the trees are distracting — Jack · talk · 16:21, Saturday, 31 March 2007
Oppose. Agree with above, it does illustrate the subject but is aesthetically and compositionally quite unremarkable. I've just uploaded an old image I had lying around that I feel might illustrate the subject better and is a bit prettier to look at. Admittedly the 'silhouettes' don't seem to be as visible in the thumbnail though, but I think that is partially because of the comparative height of the image. Thoughts? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative. I like the alternative, but I think in the other one, the trees overpower the desired effect. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 22:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This one: covers the aerial perspective and the tea fields below, and actually looks attractive. (Also oppose Diliff's alt for this nomination, for lack of blue shift). ~ trialsanderrors 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that one though is that the "blue" section is only a small splotch in the center by the time it turns lighter blue. I don't think that portrays the effect as well as the second image (the tan-ish colored one). _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 23:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the problem with all nominated pictures is that in neither case contrast decreases, because even the foreground has very low contrast. The color range doesn't change much either, so the only thing that happens is that the colors go from dark to light. The tea picture at least has six layers of shading, from contrast-rich green to low-contrast blue. So it certainly does a better job as representing the phenomenon than the nominated pictures. Although this is such a frequently photographed topic, we should be able to find a better one. ~ trialsanderrors 04:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would dispute the justification for opposing based on the lack of blue shift. As per this article, I don't believe the concept of Aerial perspective requires the shift to be blue (although perhaps the article should be amended to reflect that?). When the sun approaches the horizon (as with most sunsets), you get red/orange sunlight and the same aerial effect with those colours. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be precise, there is not necessariy a blue shift in aerial perspective but a shift towards the colour of the atmosphere, which is normally blue (except in sunrise/sunset, of course). The thicker the air layer between the object and the viewer the fainter its own colours are perceived. Alvesgaspar 11:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, but none of the pictures so far shows this at FP level, the spaghetti monster version exempted, of course. ~ trialsanderrors 19:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternate; Oppose original, Trialsanderror's alternative. The latter two have blown skies and look somewhat blurry. The alternative looks directly into the sun and yet the highlights are perfect. It doesn't include the blue shift because of the time of day, but oh well.--HereToHelp 23:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not nominating mine, I'm just pointing out that there are better alternatives than the original. ~ trialsanderrors 23:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info - I'm adding a new alternative, taken at the same spot as the original. The first plan is less distracting but the sky is a little overexposed (it could be fixed, I suppose). Several grades of gray/blue are clearly visible. Alvesgaspar 23:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another Alternative might be one I took a couple of years ago in the Brecon Beacons, not yet in an article either. --YFB ¿ 04:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Same problem – of the three things: 1. reduced contrast, 2. increased brightness, 3. hue changes to blue, this one does only 2. ~ trialsanderrors 04:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've uploaded an alternative alternative (enhanced enc) which I believe should address your concerns. --YFB ¿ 06:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Damn, it's the NPOV trump card! I fold, Support ZOMG NPOV edit. ~ trialsanderrors 06:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oppose It's missing a midget.--Svetovid 16:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Alternative 2 is the best of 'em, and the blown highlights along with the distracting tree ruin it for me. Enuja 02:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only "Alternative Alternative with greatly enhanced encyclopaedicity". Low quality, but it is so interesting! Joking. Support Image:Mount Feathertop, Australia - May 2005.jpg, Alternative 1 .Althepal 21:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]