Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Australian war memorial
This is a pretty dramatic photo to me, and I will openly admit that it is a composite. I can understand if people have a problem with this and certainly as a general rule I prefer images as unedited as possible, but I think it was a pretty good transformation of a very dull photo. Anyway I have an alternative if you don't like so moody a pic.
- Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 05:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - Now this I like. The lighting is perfect and very moody. I'd be happy to support it.PiccoloNamek 07:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yep, nice one. Please let me know when it's up for the vote. - Mgm|(talk) 09:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Not sure what to think about this one. On the one hand, the image is excellent and if you hadn't pointed out that it was a composite, I probably would not have considered it, although looking now, the highlights on the right side of the dome suggest a source of sunlight, as opposed to diffused dark clouds.. :) Anyway, on the other hand, I just don't see an encyclopaedia being the place for composite photos like that. I know that really it doesn't in any way falsify the war memorial itself, though, so I'll probably support it. For the record, the alternative doesn't look as natural to me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: It's a good photo, but I'm not sure about the major editing of the photo. Where was the picture of the sky taken? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - agree with below that this sets a dangerous precedent; we shouldn't just articificially improve pictures by changing the background. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- support the sky does it for me. Borisblue 02:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I've had a think about it and while I said above that I don't think it falsifies the subject of the photo itself, I do think it sets a dangerous precedent. I don't think that altering the subject matter in a photo is right for an encyclopaedia article. Such things should be reserved for art. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 03:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Completely agree with Diliff. --Dschwen 14:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose in agreement with Diliff. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with Diliff. On its own merits, however, I note that the lighting that we can see on the building is improbable if there are storm clouds. Enochlau 22:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with Diliff, altering the content of photos is inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Camerafiend 02:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - altered photos should not be here. P-unit 02:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)