Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kluft-photo-fireworks-Cameron-Park-June-2009-Img 2951c.jpg

File:Kluft-photo-fireworks-Cameron-Park-June-2009-Img 2951c.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 08:43:36

Info created by User:Ikluft - uploaded by User:Ikluft - nominated by User:Ikluft -- Ikluft (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom -- Ikluft (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best crop, decent quality. I've seen better fireworks-photos. —kallerna™ 19:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those long exposures (5 seconds on the link provided) are actually easier shots to get - but they're entirely a different style and result. This one with 7 shells exploding in a 1/40th of a second exposure is far more difficult to get and takes a fair amount of luck as well. Also, what specifically didn't you like about the crop? I cropped it with intent to preserve the widest shell and aspect ratio. But cropping can be adjusted (such as not worrying about the aspect ratio and cutting more off the sides) if it makes a difference. Ikluft (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - With the crop I meant that the whole firework isn't on the photo and there's too much of black area on the sides. —kallerna™ 16:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uhmm yes, I have to say that it's not exeptional enough  Richard  [®]  21:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this as it is. I think it is high-quality, high-value, and has impact. Maedin\^talk 19:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks too ordinary. No wow. --Afrank99 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\^talk 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, not featured edit

OK, I shouldn't have bothered trying to retain the aspect ratio of the original photo. Fair enough - this alternative addresses that. I also encourage reviewers to observe that this is not the same kind of photography as a long-exposure shot of fireworks. As I mentioned above, this is a 1/40th sec exposure with 7 shells in various stages of exploding. The illumination of the smoke clouds from earlier shells shows there is focus and detail. It's in effect an action shot, which is very difficult to get with fireworks. Submitted again for your review... Ikluft (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is an excellent encyclopedia illustration of 'simultaneous fireworks'; the smoke clouds contribute to the effect. But for FP a more beautiful (but less accurate) long exposure is more appropriate. A good and useful photo, just not FP. Downtowngal (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know it was a difficult shot to get. But fireworks pics need color, which these shells just don't have. There's no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, when I downloaded the photos from the camera into the laptop after the show, one of the leaders of the fireworks crew was watching as I stepped through them. For this one, his one word was indeed "Wow!" That was what led me to submit this one. Ikluft (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since there obviously are white fireworks, color isn't a requirement on its own - the different types of fireworks photography are not better than the others. It distracts the issue to say it isn't a different style. The guidelines say the value of a photo is enhanced by how it adds variety to the collection. I recommend a look through Category:Fireworks to see exposures of more than one second are very well represented, and are the ones that should hardly be considered special. They're analagous to photos of sunsets, which the guidelines address specifically. Ikluft (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks too ordinary. No wow. --Afrank99 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\^talk 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]