User talk:Ealdgyth/Picture examples

I understand Wehwalt's issues. I took most of the images in St. Johns River and some in the Everglades articles (I checked one and it does seem crooked, so I can fix that.) But as you can see below, skies aren't always blue. To expect that of every image in an article is absurd. I can't wait for the best timing of the day, or even a day with blue skies. I don't have that kind of time. Below are images I've taken that might, per your post on the FAC talk page, earn opposition.

• 
  Example of a white sky taken at 8 am on a very humid day
• 
  Example of contrast between light and dark, taken with low light settings that tend to bleach out a bit toward the top
• 
  Extreme contrast between light and dark (I truly love this image)
• 
  Another one I love, with contrast between light and dark extremes
• 
  Overcast day; just to illustrate that I took this on the only day I could go and might get back next year.

I've never seen the Lake George image net to the glass-like St. Johns River image. Kinda weird how the horizon line is the same on both. --Moni3 (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But a white sky isn't a "blown highlight" necessarily. It's only bad when it overpowers the image and draws the attention away from the subject. The Hontoon image is fine, it could be replaced with a better one if it existed, but it's decent and shows the subject. the problem with the street scene I used as an example is that the highlights are so overpowering that it draws the attention away from the subject. And the street itself is so dark that it's just a blob of dark and a blob of white. Contrast is good when it's the point of the image, not when it obscures the subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree that the street scene is overpowered by the blown highlights. I've read some of the comments in Featured Picture nominations, and white skies are something that are aesthetically displeasing for some reason. I don't understand that and it seems very subjective, almost willfully selective of a certain type of image. Only blue skies are beautiful. I'm also concerned that I know this image File:Timucua owl totem.jpg is technically deficient because it was taken indoors in a museum setting. The totem is kept in low light with a matte painting behind it. There's just no way I could get around that. --Moni3 (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the totem pic, while it could be better (it's got a color cast that could probably be removed in Photoshop (that lovely yellow color) is acceptable also. I don't really want another criteria added to the FA criteria, I think the already exisiting image policy is quite enough, because if we require only featured picture quality pictures in FAs, we're setting the bar too high. I honestly haven't seen that many horrid pictures at FAC, I've seen some that were iffy, but nothing I've ever felt required that much comment. I'm more annoyed that everyone seems to require pictures, even if the connection is tenous at best. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well include one of these turkeys, which constitute the bulk of Commons' images of Old Master paintings (cheap DVD of scans from out of copyright German books, ie ?50 years old, & totally washed-out). Here's an example File:José de Ribera 004.jpg. Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]