Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Contre jour, Queenscliff, jjron, 05.12.2009.jpg

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contre-jour[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2010 at 18:52:23 (UTC)

Original - Contre-jour photo taken directly against the setting sun causing loss of subject detail and colour, and emphasis of shapes and lines
Reason
While we already have an FP illustrating contre-jour, this one contains a number of elements of contre-jour that the other one does not, and therefore illustrates other aspects of the article. It is a full colour photo where the technique has caused almost complete loss of colour detail while the other one is a black and white scan (note that no editing was done to the colour or even the levels of this image), it is taken directly against the setting sun, with the disc of the sun showing strongly behind the subject as described in the article, and both silhouette and some low-key lighting effects are seen whereas the other one is essentially completely silhouette. Few other images on WP/Commons illustrate this use of contre-jour (most of those taken 'against' the sun use the simpler method of waiting until after the sun has set), and others lack this image quality. Could probably be included in some other articles as well. This will likely attract a lot of negative opinion, but I believe it's high quality and aesthetically pleasing.
Articles in which this image appears
Contre-jour
FP category for this image
Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment
Creator
jjron
  • Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nice. It certainly has high EV for illustrating the photographic effect. But, this composition is highly formulaic, like the telephoto shot of railroad tracks stretching off in the distance, or a brooding black & white photo of an old barn. (At least to me). Given the ubiquitous nature of this basic composition, it would seem rather underwhelming as an FP on the Main Page. Greg L (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sorry if I'm missing the point here, but that lense-flare at the bottom of the image in front of one of the legs is very distracting. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I love this! On any other picture this would be practically booed off FPC for the same glare that so excellently does illustrate its EV and subject! Great selection and thanks for forcing us to switch it up! ...Though, as J Milburn says, it would be better without the lens flare. --I'ḏ♥One 22:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I say we just crop out the bottom and get rid of the lens flare. --I'ḏ♥One 01:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Greg and Milburn. I think that this image's addition to the article makes it rather crowded. A whole gallery of more or less interesting images was removed as recently as March [1], and since the addition was made only today, one has to wonder if it will stay. I don't think the article is fit to contain every possible variation of contre-jour, at least not yet. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Pretty much per my comment, and per Papa Lima Whiskey. Greg L (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per my comment, above. Greg L (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Contre_jour,_Queenscliff,_jjron,_05.12.2009.jpg&oldid=1138500136"