Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Timothy Blackstone Bronze Plaque

Timothy Blackstone Bronze Plaque

Reason: I have a WP:FL (3/16), ~~I am close to having~~ and a WP:FA (3/26), I want to become an admin to be involved in WP:FC. I might as well get my hands dirty at WP:FP
Articles this image appears in: Timothy B. Blackstone, Blackstone Library
Creator: TonyTheTiger
Nominator: TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio)

Support — TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Needs cropping to focus just on the plaque and also needs perspective correction. howcheng {chat} 21:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not photographer. Is cropping with Microsoft paint sufficient? How does one do perspective correction? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still oppose. The newer version is well-taken of its subject, but "there's no 'there' there". howcheng {chat} 06:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "I am not a photographer", or "I am not the photographer"? If it's the latter, then the licencing information on the image page is incorrect. If it's the former, apparently you are a photographer, albeit perhaps a reluctant one... but you won't be able to do perspective correction without a decent photo editing programme - MS Paint is definitely not going to be sufficient. --YFB ¿ 01:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the photographer. I am not a serious photographer. I just use a point and shoot Canon Powershot A620 and MS Paint for cropping in general. I have a new (Feb 2007) Hewlett Packard Pavilion DV9000 and all the programs that come with Microsoft Vista Home Premium edition plus the Canon utilities programs. I may have other

I can see you didn't finish your comment, but I'll respond anyway. I'll do the cropping and perspective correction - MSPaint is not sufficient (it's bad quality for re-saving images and it can't do perspective correction). It's very low quality. For FP-quality, you need something like Adobe Photoshop (what I use), Corel Paint Shop Pro or the GIMP. I've uploaded it on Commons, I'll add cats when CommonSense is updated. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 19:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - severe noise, composition isn't great (bottom of plaque is cropped off, a 'front-on' view would be better than one slanted up from below), and the flash glare at the bottom is distracting and makes the lighting uneven. Re-shoot (if possible with a higher-quality camera - the noise may be difficult to avoid otherwise), from a better viewpoint, using a tripod and with the flash turned off. --YFB ¿ 01:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Query Here is a better view of the scene Image:20061031 View of Rotunda and Checkout Area.JPG. What camera angle are you proposing? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Vanderdecken's Edit 02, oppose all other versions. Tony, you've addressed most of my criticisms and the new non-flash image is a vast improvement over the original, particularly after Vanderdecken's crop (Vanderdecken - I think your colour correction is a bit off; it seems to have a slightly red cast). Unfortunately (and I think this is probably the fault of your camera, so it's going to be hard to do anything about it) there's still a lot of noise and the sharpness isn't great. Top marks for effort and for responding positively to criticism, but sadly I can't quite place this image amongst Wikipedia's best. --YFB ¿ 22:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -not eye catching -Nelro 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose its a lovely subject although it has far too many technical faults Ahadland 15:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Support — I have retaken the photo. I don't want to crop it with MS Paint given the technical sophistication of this panel of judges. It could be cropped slightly especially at the bottom to get rid of the exit sign. Feel free to aid in the photo editing by cropping and any other minor adjustments that are considered fair in this process. Please vote on new image. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make another edit tonight (after 6:00PM GMT/UTC). Bagsy that, I'll do one of the flash, one of the non-flash. I'll upload them both to commons and post here - until then, keep voting above this divider. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 10:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I now Support edit 02. I found the quality of the non-flash one to be so superior to that of the flash one, I didn't bother uploading an edit of the with-flash. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 12:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supoprt edit 02. Its very high quality and an interesting subject --User:Ahadland1234 14:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment After the cropping of the bookshelves, I think the book cart may look odd. here is another take without the bookcart in need of cropping. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, uninspiring subject. The photo cannot represent "WP's best" on this subject unless it's been professionally photographed. These photos do the plaque justice, but they do not represent Featured Quality. Witty lama 23:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems to me that the nominator has slightly misunderstood the purpose of the Reason section in the nominations. It is intended to point out the strengths of the nominated image not the nominator :-) --Dschwen 11:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]