Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Vicinity of Pigeon Point Lighthouse

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Vicinity of Pigeon Point Lighthouse edit

 
Original - Pigeon Point Lighthouse is one of the most picturesque lighthouses on the Pacific coast. The tower stands on a rocky promontory and has long been a landmark for ships approaching San Francisco Bay from the south. This headland, and hence the lighthouse, took its name from the ship Carrier Pigeon that wrecked here in 1853. Few sea anemones and an octopus are seen in foreground of the image.
Reason
Good quality, and EV. Adds value to the article because it depicts the reefs - the cause of few wrecks.
Articles in which this image appears
Pigeon Point Lighthouse; Carrier Pigeon (the ship)
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator
Mbz1
  • Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose The lighthouse is barely seen, the picture focuses on a boring rocky bay, it doesn't add to the article it doesn't add much to the article and it's not eye-catching.--Desiderius82 (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the nomination is Vicinity of Pigeon Point Lighthouse. The idea was to show the rocks around lighthouse, the rocks that were responsible for few wrecks.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, yet we must admit that these rocks don't look dangerous at all! I mean, the picture itself doesn't illustrate what a threat this area has been to ships. Pictures must illustrate their captions and articles, however here the caption simply reveals things we cannot see in the picture: the lighthouse itself is to remote to prove it is "one of the most picturesque lighthouses on the Pacific coast", and the bay just doesn't look threatening enough to prove this has been the place of shipwrecks. OK, I'm not saying this pic has no place in the article at all, it just cannot qualify for a FP. --Desiderius82 (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's a story about the wreck that happened there only 500 feet (152 meters) from the shore because of those very rocks. That's said, you are of course entitled to your opinion. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying these rocks aren't dangerous, I'm just trying to point out that they don't look dangerous in the pic, without the help of stories or captions! --Desiderius82 (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand what you're saying. Those rocks were sure very dangerous for me to stand on them, and to walk over them. They were very slippery because of sea grass, the tide was coming in. When I was done with my images I was in a water up to my knees :) And what I've got in return for all my efforts - "strong oppose" :) It's OK. No worries. Thanks for your comments.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe part of the problem is that you're implying that the only reason you took the photo was for FP on Wikipedia. What you got for your efforts is a photo that you seem pleased with. That should be enough to justify wading through water up to your knees. ;-) You don't need our validation. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I certainly wouldn't call that bay 'boring.' There are other pictures in this article which show the lighthouse in detail, so a more contextual image like this one is welcome. NauticaShades 12:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a small, dark, blocky triangle along the bottom edge under the octopus. --Avenue (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thank you for noticing.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing it. --Avenue (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Not bad, but not particularly striking either. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sorry, I like the idea, but the composition doesn't quite work for me, and I now see some stitching problems near the edge of the rocks, a bit more than halfway up. I'm curious, by the way - how big was that octopus? --Avenue (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:A dead octopus in tide pools.jpg I added the note to point out a snail for the scale.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I just don't think that landscapes really work with portrait format. Our eyes/brains instinctively want to scan left and right and it's just too tight IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The full resolution is wide enough to "scan" left and right, but anyway... Withdraw.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be wide enough in resolution but not wide enough in angle of view. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Diliff, few weeks ago you wanted me to show the whole Point Lobos State Park in a single image. Now you want me to stitch the ocean (because there was only an open ocean to the left). Even those rocks and grass were very hard to stitch. The tide was coming in, everything (the octopus, the grass, even small rocks) were moving and/or covered by the water and I could see them no more. I was standing in a water, and was not sure how I would reach the beach... Of course it was my own fault to nominate the image on FP. I've learned a long time ago never to nominate something that is really special for me like this one is. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about stitching.. You could have used a wider angle lens perhaps, or gone for landscape rather than portrait orientation (since it was the vertical orientation and subsequent lack of horizontal width that I was originally taking issue with). In theory, there are lots of things that you could have done that didn't involve stiching, but I understand that it isn't always possible in reality, and you can't always know in advance what others may prefer. I'm only giving you my opinion on the image. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at our landscape gallery we do have some nice landscapes in portrait format. They make good use of vertical lines in the foreground, leading up to the horizon, or they don't have a horizon at all. In pictures where the horizon is the strongest line, they're inevitably in landscape format. In this case, the line of seaweed covered shoals just isn't that compelling, and the horizon feels cramped at the sides. Fletcher (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm gonna go against the tide here and support this. Love the image, really provides context, and yes, I completely see your point about showing the rocky beach. The octopus, the water, the rocks, the lighthouse in the distance... Honestly, I love it, well done. J Milburn (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's not only octopus, the grass and the rocks there, there at least three sea anemones, some snails and hermit crabs in foreground. None of those would not have been seen, if I used a wider angle. Anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- a compositional mistake, a picture of an octopus. The image appears to be wider at the top, thinner at the bottom, taller on the right side, shorter on the left. And a sense of missing information to both sides. Abisharan (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • THE NOMINATION WAS WITHDRAWN YESTERDAY , which means the voting and the comments should stop. The only mistake here is user:franklin.vp, aka User:Abisharan aka IP 128.100.216.170, a liar from Toronto, who sickly and cowardly attacked me so cruel and so severely that four of his attacks were oversighted, and, who still has no courtesy to stop touching my nominations with it dirty hands.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular T · C 17:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Vicinity_of_Pigeon_Point_Lighthouse&oldid=1138150969"