Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Clifton Beach 5.jpg

Clifton Beach[edit]

Reason: Typical style for seascape photography. Clearly illustrative in appropriate photography articles. Doesn't appear at Clifton Beach, Tasmania for obvious reasons.
Articles this image appears in: Exposure (photography), Seascape, Color balance
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support uff. franklin.vp 02:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my wallpaper now. Out of curiosity, what are those obvious reasons why is not in the beach's article? franklin.vp 13:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably cos where's da beach

? --jjron (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That, and per Raeky. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per nominator. Encyclopedic value in both the articles it illustrates. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The captions in the respective articles make a good case for ev, imo. Good quality, too. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support In the context of creative photography, it has EV, in the context of an illustration of the location, it does not (due to the very creative long exposure). — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 07:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Raeky said it best. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 15:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A solid and eye-catching example of a photographic technique. J Milburn (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Durova³⁶² 17:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well done and very nice. Cat-five - talk 06:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This makes a great wallpaper. Zoo Fari 00:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So this picture has EV only as a technical shot. I argued before that theses are "easily" reproducibles ("easily" meaning "a good photographer could use the technique for another shot anytime"...Obviously a random guy like me wouldn't be able to do one of theses shots). Therefore I think they shouldn't be promoted if they have no EV elsewhere. However, I admit there was no clear decision about it (as a matter of fact there wasn't much of a discussion) so I would understand if someone argued that my vote is invalid... Ksempac (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This photograph has great EV in the photography field hence the three photography-related articles. It could be better by adding the image to the most relevant article, but that article is too short and the image is demonstrating photography techniques and not the subject itself. Zoo Fari 22:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Someone other than myself did actually place it in Clifton Beach, Tasmania, but the white balance and "fog" are exactly what prevent it from having a place there in my view (so I removed it). Noodle snacks (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think a lot of detail has been lost by the smudged effect on the waves due to the time lapse, which is probably the point of the photograph. I doubt if it is usable to illustrate an article except one on photography effects. There are categories for featured images on birds, animals, landscapes and so on. What category will this one go in? I might support it as an example of a photography effect, because it would be puzzling if shown in a landscape or beach category. Snowman (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the articles it is in. I completely agree that it isn't usable for illustrating Clifton beach and so on. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Elekhh (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Clifton Beach 5.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]