Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset over the Pacific Ocean at the pier in Pismo Beach, California LCCN2013631703.tif

File:Sunset over the Pacific Ocean at the pier in Pismo Beach, California LCCN2013631703.tif, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2016 at 14:51:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Carol M. Highsmith - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This photograph is part of a batch upload project from the Highsmith collection at the Library of Congress. Motivated by the lawsuit against Getty Images, see Village Pump archive. As the TIFF is a large download, over 200 MB, the Commons full size jpeg version is a useful alternative to examine details. -- Fæ (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like the tooth/wave-shape repeating pattern in the pools on the beach at the bottom of the frame. I also like the swirling water from the long exposure (but not so long it makes the sea look like a methane sea on some Saturn moon, which seems to be the fashion). There are some technical flaws which can't be ignored at FP. Several people on the pier have left ghosts as they moved during the exposure. And the sensor of this D800 is filthy with dust. A fair bit of careful Photoshopping could hide those defects, though I think then it would need to be uploaded as a separate file. I compare to an existing FP File:Clevedon Pier 2013.jpg by Saffron Blaze and this isn't quite at the same level. The bottom quarter is more interesting in this photo, but Saffron's got a much better composition of the pier + lights + horizon, and this pier is less photogenic in (near-)silhouette. [Btw, dust spots can sometimes be hard to spot initially. If you wiggle the image from side to side, they pop out of a featureless sky and then you can't help see them.] Colin (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose When I open this picture at a bigger size, I feel much the same as I do when I look at the pictures I took with one of my old cameras. That camera was top of the line ten years ago and I thought the pics were fabulous. Until I bought a new camera... Time has passed and criteria's are higher. Unless pictures are of historic importance, I think it will be increasingly difficult to nominate older "normal" pictures now. cart-Talk 21:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- W.carter, I'm not sure we're ready to class a D800 as "old". It is only four years old, not ten, and was indeed top-of-the-line. There's a few Canon owners wish they had a sensor as good as a D800 even now. It's no older than your Sony DSC-RX100 and will easily surpass it in every measure except size. Whatever flaws there are with this image, the camera is not to blame. And we know the photographer is highly talented. From the EXIF I can see this has been processed with CameraRaw but only a few adjustments applied. I wonder if Highsmith thought this was a good image but not outstanding enough to spend time polishing and cleaning, which is a shame. -- Colin (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I was not comparing the two cameras side by side, only said that that was what came to mind when I saw the quality of the picture. I know that D800 came out only four years ago, but since it was used by a professional in all kinds of situations, it would probably have way more "mileage" than I could ever rack up with any of my cameras and that changes/ages a camera in unwanted ways. That's what was at the back of my head. I may not be a professional photographer but I work with such people and some of them go through cameras at the same rate taxi drivers go through cars compared to us "Sunday drivers". (Sidebar: my "new camera" is not my little Sony, it's my Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000) But my guess is as good as yours and the bottom line is that the quality of this pic is not good enough right now. cart-Talk 23:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Carter is wrong. I still shoot on my 2009 Canon 7D :D (and no offense to Canon, but none of their current body will push me to upgrade). - Benh (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have probably taken better care of it than my coworkers do. ;) cart-Talk 07:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sorry, but no offense, I'm not going to download a file that's over 100 MB in size, just in order to be able to look at it in full size. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a link to the large-image viewer. However, I ...

Doesn't work for this file. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, you can see everything clearly at the 7,360 × 4,912 pixels option on the file's page. It's quite enough. cart-Talk 07:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really seem like enough to me, but it doesn't matter much, as I don't think my vote really matters to the outcome, either way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin's comments and notes. What a shame ... it's got such great colors and mood. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 00:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]