Original - A reconstruction of Radio Venceremos, the Salvadoran guerrilla's clandestine radio
Reason
Using available light, an image of a reconstruction of Radio Venceremos, in the Museo de la Palabra y la Imagen, San Salvador. Some inevitable grain. Of historic and encyclopedic interest.
Support as nominatorjbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC). Please note that this is my first venture into Featured Picture candidacy! Be kind. :)[reply]
Comment People will probably say the image has a lot of noise, and the shadow on RHS cuts off the subject. You may need more light, maybe longer exposure with a tripod or other stabiliser, and an additional source of light to make sure the whole scene is covered. A camera with a larger sensor, such as a
DSLR, will help reduce noise, but of course, you may have to live with what you've got. The composition is quite good, though, for a museum setting where you were probably cordoned off from the subject. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. To explain the shooting situation: the original Radio Venceremos was located in a cave, and so this reconstruction was set up in an unlit room with a curtain for a door. I had to hold open the curtain to let light in, to enable me to shoot without a flash. And I will have to live with what I've got, given I'm not about to be returning to El Salvador any time soon. Anyhow, I thought that the image was interesting enough to submit it here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - unacceptably posterised and noisy. We can't promote pictures because they're 'pretty good for a point-and-shoot', sorry. You may want to put in a request somewhere on WP for anyone living in/going near El Salvador and who owns a good DSLR to re-take the pic. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does "posterized" mean? NB the rationale for this picture was not that it was "pretty good for a point and shoot." See above. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked, and it didn't help me much. I failed to relate the example on that page with this photograph. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The example is a very exaggerated case to illustrate the concept, but if you check your picture, it's clear that noise has flattened out a lot of the tonal subtlety. Thegreenj 00:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Posterisation is a compression effect. If fewer colours are used in an image, the image file can be smaller. The GIF format is particularly notable for trying to reduce the number of colours in an image to achieve a smaller size. That said, you'd be right to point out that Vanderdecken is contradicting himself a bit, because you're unlikely to get pixel-level noise and posterisation at the same time. While you may find that once you remove the noisy pixels, you're not left with many different colours in the image, it's not typically, technically, a posterisation effect. In this case, I'd say it's probably due to lighting conditions and the subject itself (there are some purple smears on the back wall - difficult to tell if that's an artefact or not - I'm tempted to think that there was *something* on the wall that came out purple in your image). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that the low light conditions and the noise contributed to a pseudo-posterisation effect, particularly visible on the radio's front panel and the green thing leaning again the left wall - blobs of yellowy-green and purple that look like watercolour paint. I also realise that 'pretty good' wasn't the rationale, but I felt that some other people's possible reasons for supporting might include that argument, and I wanted to remind them that it doesn't hold here. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Vanderdecken. Technically I think it is still posterisation, but as you say, not a typical example of it. What seems to have happened is that the underlying colour noise in the dark areas has been brightened, which exacerbates the noise by increasing the luminence range of it (essentially increasing the contrast). As a result, it is posterised but with speckles - not banding. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 12:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've learned something from this nomination, if nothing else. :) I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully what you've learned isn't that its futile to nominate images and we're a nasty bunch of people to newcomers. ;-) We do have quite high standards though, and opposition to the nomination doesn't automatically mean it not is a valuable image for an article, so I hope you don't take them the wrong way! Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 13:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alas,
WP:BITE is ignore much of the time especially it seems when it comes to opposing FP's, there are ways to criticize and oppose the nomination of a photo for FPC without crossing the line into insulting the photographer and crossing a line which I think was crossed above. Cat-five - talk 08:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose Unacceptable grain and awkward composition. I realize that's it's a museum and that there are problems bringing expensive cameras to South America, but "This is the best that I can do" has never been sufficient. Sorry.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 20:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above. crassic![talk] 02:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality issues, not up to FP standards. Good for the article, though. --Janke | Talk 05:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I don't agree with some of the comments above. I think the composition is fine, except for the fact that the computer (?) is obscured significantly. I think the photo has artistic merit, rather than being a typical encyclopaedic composition. It may well be the case that, as others have said, your camera will not produce Featured Picture material. Some of these smaller cameras do perform much better in bright, sunny conditions, but I couldn't say for your particular model. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NB FWIW the camera's a pretty high-end model of "point and shoot." I did in fact deliberately not purchase an SLR (though I had originally thought to do so) because I often travel in Latin America, and don't want to draw attention to my camera. Anyhow, I'll try again one of these days. Thanks to all for comments. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rules say you have to give a reason when opposing. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're rules so much as guidelines, but that said, the closer is likely to disregard it if it contains false or nonexistent rationale. You could always say "as above" or "per other opposes" but thats a bit of a cop-out unless its obvious. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 13:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that as a cop-out at all. It just saves typing it all out again, and keeps the discussion short and focused. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it doesn't prove you actually have your own valid opinion of the image. If it is ok to say "as above", then it really should be ok to provide no justification whatsoever. I think if you're prepared to vote, you should at least demonstate your own specific reason, however brief. I'm not saying you can't agree with above, but I do think you should specify it. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 19:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to the akward angle and the graininess. Cat-five - talk 08:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
