Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cabin at Black Moshannon State Park
- Reason
- The image is used in the FA article about Black Moshannon State Park to illustrate the work of the Civilian Conservation Corps, which built the cabin and most of the park between 1933 and 1937. Today the cabin is part of a National Register of Historic Places historic district (one of three such districts in the park) and is still rented to visitors (hence the modern roof and steps). The image is also used in the Log cabin article to illustrate the section on the creation of modern log cabins in national and state parks. I believe the image meets the FPC criteria: it clearly shows the log cabin and the surrounding forest, is well lit and nicely composed, and is large enough for FP. The cabin is on a bit of slope and it is possible that the image may also be slightly tilted, but I have not manipulated the image in any way. I am submitting this here as Juliancolton suggested I nominate this for Featured Picture, and Shoemaker's Holiday seconded its nomination at PPR. Ceranthor also expressed support for the image at the PPR page.
- Articles this image appears in
- Black Moshannon State Park and Log cabin
- Creator
- Ruhrfisch
- Support as nominator --Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support, of course. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - chromatic aberation, the lighting is harsh if not blown out, and it seems desaturated. de Bivort 06:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Blown out lighting. Diego_pmc Talk 07:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose obvious tilt. Mfield (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- QUestion - would rotating the picture to correct for this be allowed? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- It would certainly be allowed (and encouraged, since FPs are supposed to illustrate the article as best they can) but given the other reasons for opposition, it probably wouldn't make people change their votes. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I am more used to FAC, where most are more easily fixed (does anyone have a color saturator or chromatic aberation repair kit?) and wanted to make sure this could legally be fixed. I know this is not getting promoted, but appreciate everyone's feedback and wish I had a better camera. Diliff, I am literally in awe of your images - please keep up the amazing work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- It would certainly be allowed (and encouraged, since FPs are supposed to illustrate the article as best they can) but given the other reasons for opposition, it probably wouldn't make people change their votes. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- QUestion - would rotating the picture to correct for this be allowed? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- A photograph's prospects for featuring is largely determined when the shutter button on the camera is pressed. The tools for editing pictures are Adobe Photoshop or The Gimp. Fixing CA is possible, but it's best done with what's called a RAW file. MER-C 02:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry, Rurhfisch. Content contributing is probably, more important than FPC. Best, —Ceran(sing / see) 22:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support It looks like a featured pic to me. But I am not a professional. Dincher (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per de Bivort's criteria --MakE shout! 04:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Add Edit1 to correct tilt, exposure and color balance as far as possible. CA is not easily fixable though. Mfield (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 07:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)