Dolmen Roch-Feutet
I took this photo in Carnac, whose article it now appears in. Strengths:
- Generally pleasing to look at (lush green is always soothing on the eyes) :)
- Very clearly illustrates the whole dolmen (unlike most other dolmens which are somewhat buried under ground)
- The inscription is sort of a cute touch...
- Good detail even when zoomed in
Weakneses:
- Probably would be more interesting oriented to look at the "entrance" to the dolmen
- Sky is overexposed
- Maybe the surrounding foliage isn't that exciting?
- Nominate and support. - Stevage 20:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support. A nice image. As mentioned, the sky is overexposed, but this is basicaly unavoidable in that lighting. -- Pharaoh Hound 22:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support- DVD+ R/W 01:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support looks like you just about covered it. It's strenths outweigh it's weaknesses. I like it. -- Lewk_of_S e rthic contrib talk 03:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
-
! Strong Oppose I typically would just oppose, but the proliferance of Supports make a little uneasy. This image is fine for displaying a topic.. but featured-picture quality, it is not. It is not high quality even at 100%.. it looks like a low-megapixel point-and-shoot and the inscription is very difficult to read. With proper adjustments this picture could be improved, including adjustments of coloration, lighting, and especially sharpness.. but dear goodness, no offense to the photographer, but this does not stand up to very many of the images listed at
Wikipedia:Featured pictures..
drumguy
8800 -
speak
03:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with you. Very difficult to be objective when it's your own work. Any ideas how you would get a featured picture out of such an object? Regarding photoshopping, I invite you or others to do your best. Incidentally, it was taken on the 6.1 megapixel Fuji Finepix F10, so "point and shoot" yes, "low megapixel" no. :) Stevage 06:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Drumguy8800 - Glaurung 06:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
