Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ten pin bowling

Ten Pin Bowling

Good illustrative power, and works well for me aesthetically.

Support Self Nom --Fir0002 23:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have no idea why you would put such a boring image (IMHO) up on FPC. Not FP material. Not all the encyclopedic either. Froggydarb 00:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your frank comment, I too was a little unsure as to if it was suitable. It was actually my brother who was really keen on it. Don't get me wrong I thought it was OK too, but my brother was sure it was FP worthy so I put it up on the strength of that. --Fir0002 01:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to nominate a FPC sometime, to show us just how non-boring and encyclopedic images can get? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-20 12:55
  - ~~Sorry? --Fir0002 03:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)~~ Sorry, I thought you were referring to me! --Fir0002 12:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  - Brian, he did here and here. However, it does seem that he could use some lessons in tact.. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also have a featured picture.... Any way it is MY opinion, you can't say that MY opinion is wrong just because you disagree with MY opinion. Nominations are based on peoples opinions, just because you might not agree with a persons opinion doesn't mean that you should disregard it. Clearly you didn't look all that hard for pictures I had nominated seeing one of them you edited. Froggydarb 06:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Settle, petals, please. We're just here to pick out the most appealing, most encyclopaedic pictures from Wikipedia. Let's try and leave our egos out of it, but we should feel free to be as nit-picky about these images as required. Stevage 08:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Froggydarb, what you said was more than just your opinion on the image itself. You said "I have no idea why you would put such a boring image (IMHO) up on FPC" and that borders incivility. I agree with Stevage, chill winston! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- It just that I was shocked when Fir put this up, I've seen picutres that he hasn't put up on FPC that are much better. Froggydarb 22:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - it's relatively encyclopaedic, and relatively pretty (the strong vignetting actually works - was that deliberate?), but I find the dirty pins really off putting, and the bright pink markings don't help much either. Love the reflection of the ball on the polished boards though. A great photo to come out of a trip to the bowling alley, but not "pure" enough for FP, IMHO. Stevage 08:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the vignetting was delibrate - photoshop actually. Understand your sentiments on the aesthetics of the actual pin. I almost went and cleaned them in the name of wiki and a good pic! :-) --Fir0002 11:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I do agree with previous comments. It is reasonably illustrative but very unappealing looking and not the sort of impressive image you usually associate with a featured picture. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Basically agree with above (well obviously not Froggydarb), but I think it may be up to scratch. I find the ball quite amazing, it looks like it's just sitting there, and has very pretty colouring. Reflections are also really nice. The only thing that puts me off from full support are the dirty pins. --jjron 11:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Don't get me wrong, it is a good, sharp pic with a high resolution etc, but it just isn't all that interesting. Froggydarb 05:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I like the picture, I find it encyclopedic and well taken. The dirty pins accully more accuraitly portray a regular bowling alley. The thing I dont like about it though, is the border around the picture (I think this is the "vignetting" that people are refering to, but I have never heard that word before so excuse me :D). xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 17:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, speaking of which, this image would make a great contribution to vignetting, perhaps replacing fir0002's previous "artistic" image on that page (which is not as heavily vignetted). Stevage 13:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vignetting is generally regarded as true light fall-off due to physical phenomena (eg obstruction of lens, etc) though, not a darkening of the image periphery in photoshop. I know the end-product is basically the same visually, but I think a real-world example of vignetting is more appropriate for the article than a synthesis. Also, it is not the best image to demonstrate it because, at least to me, it looks like someone is shining a light into the centre of the frame. A better example would show that what would otherwise be an evenly-lit scene will be darker at the edges due to the phenomenon of vignetting. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: per above comments. Doesn't look like a very good strike ball either:-) --Nebular110 13:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, would much prefer an action shot, like taken just after all the pins were struck. --Golbez 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no sense of motion, it looks like the ball is just sitting there on the lane. Doesn't convey action. Night Gyr 19:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose. I don't like the black perimeter. To demonstrate bowling I would like it to at least show the entire lane (accross, not neccesarily length). Also as stated above the ball just looks like it is sitting there. say1988 01:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No action, the vignetting is too dark, no sense of motion. Not FP quality. Morgan695 03:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a very exciting picture, isn't very informative and doesn't really grab the eye. The perimeter is too dark... it's simply not a great photo. OldMajor 21:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It almost seems like good image for glaucoma, but it isn't in that article. I'd also like an action shot instead, so perhaps leave the shutter open a little more? Tito xd^(?!?) 05:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. per all oppose --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]