Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hay bale at dawn

Round Hay Bale at dawn

I know I've already unsuccessfully tried to feature a hay bale photo, but to me a round hay bale is so iconic of farming and the country (particularly in Australia) that I feel such a photo is worthy of FP status.

Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 www 23:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tweaked the image a bit. Feel free to revert. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 00:32

Support, despite the lines in the sky, which I'm sure other people will pick up on. I'd rather see them removed, it would be a pity to have this otherwise beautifal image rejected on such an issue.(Are you one of those people who can't stand it when people talk using terrible grammar? If so, I'd be delighted if you could pass the proverbial fine-toothed comb of grammar through my user page. Thanks! 00:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- I think the lines are from your monitor. Try degaussing your monitor and see if those lines move. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 00:27

Support. Difficult topic to illustrate, but I think this does it well. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 00:27
Considerably better than the last two hay bale nominations. Good composition. The colors - the fields, the sky, are still pretty underwhelming to me. Weak oppose. Maybe take the photo in a different season, when the fields in the background aren't all brown? zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've auto-leveled the image to help with the colors. Make sure to CTRL+F5 to get the new version. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 01:07
  - My, you're bold... ;-) I think you should have uploaded your edit as "version 2", not overwrite Fir's image. Even though it is compliant with GDFL, in the case of FPCs I think originals should not be overwritten... --Janke | Talk 09:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wasn't really overwriting Fir's. It's just simpler than uploading multiple versions to separate files. I've noticed that when some of the modified versions become featured, the original version remains the one used in the actual article, while the modified version is orphaned. It would be better if people checked the individual histories of each image for their favorite version. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 13:52
      - Well, according to the file history you uploaded a new version with the same file name. Sure, Fir's original is there in the history, but how many who look at this page would go and check that? Usually, new versions are uploaded and displayed as variations here, so voters can compare them - see the Water drop, British Museum, Ajanta Painting and Cental station further below. --Janke | Talk 14:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I know that very well. My point was that sometimes people forget to put the featured version into articles, leaving the original, unfeatured version in the articles, and leaving the featured version orphaned. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 15:45
        Isn't that the job of the person who administers the FPC page and removes the entries from the page when they have approved/rejected? If that isn't being done, then that process should presumably be addressed. It doesn't mean you make changes to the original before the change is supported here.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not like I'm saying my version should be the only choice. It would be easier to automate the process if all the versions were uploaded to the same file, and voters picked their favorite edit (this would only be done for changes to an original image). Then the featured choice could simply be made the only version of the image, and there is no need to change links in articles. I don't know who is supposed to be doing that, but I've seen it happen in the past where the featured picture is orphaned. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 17:00
        But you haven't really given viewers the chance to see both simultaneously and decide for themselves. I've seen that happen before too, but I don't really think that updating an existing image before it is approved is the answer, as I've mentioned previously. Maybe this should be taken to the talk page. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Bah edit conflict with Diliff. Brian0918, please don't overwrite pics like this. I appreciate you had reasons and it wasn't done thoughtlessly but that just isn't the way we currently do things and people will not be expecting it. Such a change in practice needs to be discussed first ~ Veledan • Talk 18:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I've been doing this for quite a while now. If the change was very significant, and not necessarily better, then I would probably upload it to a separate file, but for generally good changes, I'll just overwrite the original. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 20:44
        I've been doing this for quite a while now. - As you can see, we don't all approve of that. In the future, please upload your edits of FPCs as new files, so we can see the changes and vote on them. Not everyone may agree that your edit is better. If the new version is good, it will be chosen over the original, but we need to compare. --Janke | Talk 22:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Personally I'd have liked to have had an alternative version rather than an overwrite, as I'm not sure of the background blurring and I prefer the warm glow of dawn. But I'll leave that side you guys to decide. --Fir0002 www 00:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree. I'm neutral towards the colour balance difference but I really dislike the background blurring that he has applied. It doesn't look particularly photographic and natural and even before I had read what he had done, I noticed that the background appeared a little quirky. I support the original image by Fir0002 and oppose the edit. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 04:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The background was blurred to help the hay stand out. If you look through Fir's pictures, you'll notice he does this a lot too. Someone might be able to do a better job of it, though. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-27 04:58
        I don't really agree with Fir0002's blurring either to be honest. This is opening up that old can of worms again but surely if you want a blurred background, you open the aperture more. I don't think the haystack needed to stand out any more than it already did, anyhow. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually I don't blur the background unless I'm removing noise. I think the only photo I remember digitally blurring is the haystack photo Brian asked my to do to try make stand out more. Like the Bearded lizard is all just natural bokeh --Fir0002 www 09:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC
        Getting a bit crazy with the indentations here. I think Brian has to use a bit of restraint in photo manipulation. Blurring isn't necessary in this image at all. It stands out just fine. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 03:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I've undone the background blurring. It wasn't that great to begin with. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-27 05:04
        
        undone... wasn't that great to begin with. So, if I hadn't taken this up, it means that an inferior version would have been promoted... Now I hope you understand why we want the original untouched, and vote on the versions! Please abstain from this practice in the future, thanks! In fact, I feel so strongly that the original should always be visible here (and I think I have the support of Diliff, Veledan and Fir), that I've been bold myself, and added a comment in the voting instructions. NOTE: Discussion now taken to FPC talk page. If you have comments, please continue there. --Janke | Talk 07:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        No. I was waiting for Fir's opinion, not yours. I had planned on working on it some more, but just haven't gotten around to it. I don't see the need to have to upload multiple files to multiple locations when they are all visible from the same location. It just seems easier to have them all in one location to compare. The number of people who agree with you doesn't really matter if your rationale is not sound, so I would focus on that. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-27 13:35

Support. I see the lines in the sky too. Maybe jpeg compression artifacts? Doesn't detract from an excellent photo. --dm ^(talk) 06:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they appear to be artifacts. The lines are less apparent in Fir's original image. (Another reason to keep the original visible... ;-)--Janke | Talk 08:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support this rotund haystack. (original)--Janke | Talk 09:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ for now, though I do like the pic. My doubt stems from the fact that there is nothing to give an idea of scale. I don't know whether I'm looking at a bale that stands 3 feet or 12 feet high. ~ Veledan • Talk 18:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The bale is about 1.2 m (I'm not sure what that is in feet ;-) --Fir0002 www 00:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whose feet? :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-27 00:46
    - About 4 feet then :-) OK I'll support especially if the size info can be added to the image text. ~ Veledan • Talk 16:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Joke 20:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like the image and it's a good clear representation of a round hay bale.--Dakota ~ ° 00:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another nice image by Fir0002. Alvinrune ^TALK 00:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another amazing, cool, and unique image from Fir0002! Staxringold 19:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original was more popular, so I have reverted Brian's edited version to the original. Raven4x4x 05:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Promoted Image:Round hay bale at dawn02.jpg Raven4x4x 05:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]