Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fox Tor on Dartmoor

Fox Tor on Dartmoor[edit]

Reason: Absolutely beautiful, high resolution image of an unusual and remote place. Adds value to the articles it is used in.
Articles this image appears in: Tor;Fox Tor;The Hound of the Baskervilles
Creator: Herbythyme

Support any as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all for composition and harsh lighting. Its confused as to whether it is an image of the rocks or a landscape - the rocks are too small to be a primary subject yet as a landscape the composition does not draw your eye into the image, the tor is centered and there is too much foreground and that ridge that you can't see over. It lacks depth as a result and does not capture the expanse nor the bleakness of the moors. Mfield (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Weak oppose edits The subject is too far and most of the image is sky and grass. Zoo Fari 23:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comosition has increased improvement. However, cropping results in low quality. If not promoted, it may have a chance at Valued Pictures if it has been in an article for atleast one month.

Comment The subject of the image is the atmosphere of the place - the grass, the rock, the sky, the hills and the shadows and the mystery behind this all.
Mfield, you said the image "does not draw your eye" . I do not think I could agree with this statement. IMO two opposes in 40 minututes after the nomination show just the opposite. When one image of mine was here for 7 days and did not get any vote at all, it showed to me that it "did not draw any eye". Thank you for your votes!--Mbz1 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the composition not drawing the eye in or leading the eye around. There are several compositional choices that have caused this. If the image drew rapid oppositions then that is not a good reflection on those choices surely. Mfield (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Still for me the oppose votes are better than no votes at all. At least somebody took the time to oppose :)--Mbz1 (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the edit is an improvement on the composition. It definitely makes it a more interesting picture, not sure why, but it does :) Kaldari (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the kind comment, Kaldari! I cannot explain why, but I not only see the image, I also feel it. For example I could feel the wind. The image helps me to understand better what Watson felt, when he saw Sherlock Holmes on the tor.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support edit 1 Lighting isn't the best, but the crop definitely is an improvement. Simpler composition, plus that ol' rule of thirds. Decent ev. Durova^Charge! 04:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm intriged - how would lighting be improved in the natural environment? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about timing - overcast conditions or early morning/evening would have done it. MER-C 01:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a dangerous place to go. As the article says:
"This wide expanse of peat bog continues to be dangerous to walkers, especially after heavy rain.On the flank of Fox Tor stands Childe's Tomb - according to local legend, the last resting place of Childe the Hunter, an unfortunate traveller who died there during a blizzard."
Early morning/evening means going there or coming back in the darkness of the nights.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No pain no gain :) Most of the best landscape photography demands getting up very early in order be in place at the best time. Flashlight, cell phone, sturdy boots and a flash of coffee recommended, and maybe some bog adapters for the tripod feet are in order. Mfield (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Mfield next time, next time..., but now in the Edit # 2 your oppose reasons are gone aren't they. So, if you're not ready to support Edit 2 maybe you could change your oppose vote to oppose original? :). Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I don't believe an edit can resolve all the composition issues, and obviously not the lighting. The edit has better placement of the primary subject, but cropping can't change the perspective and the consequent lack of background. Mfield (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's another edit with a slightly different aspect ratio - Kaldari's looked a bit too cut off on the right and with a bit too much sky for me. I took the chance to improve the oversharpening around the rocks as well. Time3000 (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Time3000! Please feel free to support your edit. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Whilst the composition can be improved with cropping, I think the quality level is too low to pass. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What aspect of the quality is too low please? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A color slips off.--Sennin-G (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]