Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/TaosPuebloToday

Taos Pueblo today

alternate of above (posted here 2/12/06)

This is a photo of Taos Pueblo, right outside Taos, New Mexico. I was surprised that the photos of Taos Pueblo were drawings from many years ago and a close up. None really seemed to reflect the current majesty of the place in its surroundings (and why so many New Agers fell in love with the place). I took this photo on a trip last May, the photo was originally taken in a 3:2 ratio on my beat up Sony Cybershot. (I apologize for the non-descriptive file name, this was one of the first photos I uploaded and someone kindly told me about giving my files descriptive names a little later)

Nominate and support. - Bobak 21:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~. The woman standing there distracts. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What woman? :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-12 03:26
  - Oh, wow. Neutral. Now how about the people in the center? zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support. that place is almost always packed with people, so its impressive how few you have. pschemp | talk 08:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I've been there 3 times and it's always overflowing with tourists. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-12 09:20
Neutral - I like it, but I don't find it as visually stunning as what a FP should be. (Maybe the dull colors are what's bothering me?) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha... yeah, those damn Indians and their dull colors... why didn't they think ahead and consider WP:FP standards before they built their houses out of mud? That comment cracked me up, man; if I didn't think you were serious, I'd give you a humor barnstar. :P Kafziel 17:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. So this place is always overflowing with tourists? The picture does not reflect that. This is not only another photoshopped picture, this time the manipulation isn't even mentioned in the edit history. Disturbing. And apart from that it doesn't strike me as stunning either. --Dschwen 17:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the picture was filled with tourists, everyone would oppose on those grounds; that's why this picture is better than most. I've added a comment to the edit history summarizing the change. I've retouched so many photos, including dozens of featured pictures, that I don't understand the complaint about using Photoshop to fix problems with an image. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-12 17:28

Obviously you don't know about this discussion. I really don't want to repeat this all over again, but presenting digitally altered pictures with elements photoshopped out is not good encyclopedic style IMHO. At major newspapers journalists get fired for that stuff. --Dschwen 17:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And IMHO, removal of unimportant content in order to improve the appearance of an image is perfectly fine. We are not a newspaper. If you don't like the retouch, then vote based on the original image. I've read through your discussion, and don't believe you've presented much of a case. You confirm repeatedly your position, but do not really try to get others to consider it. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-12 17:49

Labeling it my discussion doesn't really do it justice... --Dschwen 18:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are you opposing both the original version and the modified version, or just the modified version? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-12 18:02

Apart from the manipulation I have other objections. It is a bit on the small side, the clutter in the foreground (hard to tell what it is from the angle) obstructs some buildings and I don't like the perspective. It is hard to make out the 3d structure of the pueblos. So I'll go with oppose all.--Dschwen 18:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the stuff in the foreground are carports. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-12 18:42

LOL :-) I wonder were all the El Caminos are..--Dschwen 19:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are not carports. they were "original" (for what, I've forgotten --it was 9 months ago). The building doesn't have any electricity or water, but it does have residents (based on volunteers from the Taos Pueblo Native Americans). The mountains in the background are the Sangre de Christos. If I'd known that having a person in less than 1% of the photo would've become an issue, I would've yelled at her to move ;-) ...and I kept telling the sky to be bluer but it didn't want to agree with me, don't even get me started about the earth/adobe. I mean, all they wanted to be was brown :-p Heh, sorry, couldn't help myself there. :-) Bobak 20:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know they originally served some other purpose, but I seem to recall them being used for carports. At least, I remember a car being parked under one of them. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-12 20:51

They are drying racks. psch e mp | talk 21:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Image appears out of focus and pixelated. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-12 18:40
- Wait... are you the same person as the above comments? Or did you change your mind after digitally altering the photo? Bobak 20:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was fine with fixing up the photo, but I didn't think it was featured quality. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-12 20:51

Well, I can't help the pixelated part of it (I'm not a pro and I don't use film), but I did add an alternative photo above from the same article that shows the important creek in front and does not show anyone (naturally, uneditted). It was uploaded at the same time as the other photo. Bobak 22:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Know what? Until I noticed this comment,I though that was an altered pictured to make a point, because of the debate at the talk page over removing content from pictures. *headdesk* Circeus 19:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]