Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Tourist Stall, Trafalgar Square, London - May 2009.jpg

File:Tourist Stall, Trafalgar Square, London - May 2009.jpg[edit]

Reason: While this is one of my more light-hearted nominations, I do think it's an image with very good techicals and has undeniable EV for the article. ;-)
Articles this image appears in: Tourism in London
Creator: User:Diliff

Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've always liked this image. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and you're right about the EV as well. Nicely done with the people out of focus. This would do well as a stock photo. --Muhammad(talk) 03:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per above, but a bit too aggressive on the compression (see the left side of the London maps sign and various people). MER-C 08:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that the problem is compression. I save all my images at level 10 (out of 12) in PS CS4, which is usually more than enough. If anything, I think I see minor Bayer filter artifacts on sharp edges (eg top of the Union Jack flag). I don't see the same effect on the left side of the London maps sign though (I think that's just the laminated edge), or in the OOF people - that's just sensor noise as far as I can see. I could have applied some NR but I didn't find it too objectionable. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I thought it would be too dark for the lamination - nearby it's almost invisible and on the other side it's purple. Noise and JPEG artifacts become indistinguishable in the right quantity but the compression ratio (11.3) was what led me to suspect artifacts. MER-C 12:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can see that the darker section corresponds to the bend in the sign and there's an equivalent on the right side too. True, sometimes JPEG artifacts are hidden in noise, but usually it's the noise that's objectionable. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I find EV of this shot highly dubious. This kind of stall isn't London or even UK-specific, I think you can get pretty much the same shot in every major European city, with the only difference being the name of the city on the shirts and the flags' color. Moreover, the article in itself isn't very compelling (that looks like a finely veiled list of places for me), and the picture add strictly nothing to understand the article Ksempac (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But in some ways, that's the point. It doesn't have to be unique to London to have good EV IMO, it only has to be representative of tourism in London, and selling all sorts of random junk that tourists might buy *IS* quite respresentative of that ;-). And you're right that the article tends towards a list of places, but if you look at other similar articles, they all do it. I'm not defending the articles, because clearly they could and should be improved to provide more information about the tourism itself, rather than what tourists visit, but I think this image does a lot more for the article than simply showing another attraction - it refers to the economics of tourism, and sits in the appropriate location for that. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I appreciate the abstract "tourism in London" quality of the image, but the composition doesn't quite do it for me. There are touristy wares, and there are lots of peoples' backs, but you can't see a stall keeper, or anyone actively buying. The background is blah, the lighting is blah, there's nothing to really catch the eye. The article it's used in is crap, though the image definitely helps. I like what you're trying to do here, but imho, the image just doesn't quite do it. I'm just picturing a better version of this with a couple of tourists haggling with a stall keeper, more interesting junk for sale, better lighting, and perhaps something interesting in the background. Stevage 08:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but it sounds like in some ways, you're looking for something that from my experience doesn't exist. This exactly the sort of junk that that is for sale to tourists, and for the most part the stalls sit there attracting very little attention. They're probably more likely to sell a bottle of water to someone than a tacky souvenir but somehow they stay in business. Low rental costs, probably. I've certainly heard about plans to rid these sort of stands from Oxford Street, and there's been an outcry from those whose families have been renting the plots from Westminster Council for the last 100 years or so. Anyway, I digress. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I can't say I'm sold on the lighting, but the EV is sufficient enough for me. When Ksempac says above "This kind of stall isn't London or even UK-specific, I think you can get pretty much the same shot in every major European city, with the only difference being the name of the city on the shirts and the flags' color", to me that's what precisely makes it tourist-y. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks like a normal holiday snapshot to me --Andreas 06 (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Diffuse composition. The stall is in shadow while the tourists' heads are sunlit, which could work if it were a shot of a family purchasing a flag or a shirt. These people are ignoring the stall and their bodies obscure a substantial part of it. The original I♥NY shirts were easier to read. Maybe there's an FP to be had from a London tourist stall if it's possible to get one under different conditions, and possibly with a different background. The masonry facade in this is unremarkable and the backlit leaves at far left pull my eye out of the frame. Durova²⁸⁸ 14:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Durova. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted -- Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]