Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hopetoun falls.jpg

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hopetoun Falls [edit]

Hopetoun Falls, near Otway National Park, Victoria, Australia
Version 2
Version 3

This is a photo I took which is the lead image in the waterfall article. I have nominated it as suggested by Dschwen in the Wailua Falls nomination. Clearly illustrates a waterfall and is (IMHO) a well composed and pretty temperate rainforest scene in Southern Australia.

  • Nominate and support ORIGINAL. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - magical picture, I love it. It's a shame that branch sticks out on the left but I assume only one camera position was possible. I'll certainly be supporting it - Adrian Pingstone 17:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You're certainly right that only one camera position was possible. Moving any further to the left and you cover the waterfall with the foreground branches, any further forward and you lose the foreground completely, which I thought added a lot to the composition and made you feel like you were 'in' the rainforest as opposed to just viewing it. Really, any major change to the position and you lose the intimacy and composition of the photo, so short of fording the creek, climbing the cliff face and hacking down the branch, I had to put up with it. :) Thanks for your comments though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - Completely enchanting. I don't think the branch is a problem. It adds to the feel of the whole scene. Which to my imagination looks exactly what I picture a carboniferous[1] forest to look like. --Deglr6328 18:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's a terrific photograph. I'm sure it's even nicer to look at in person. Sarge Baldy 11:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Sorry if I am too early but I won't be around next week. Wikikiwi 21:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Quite an awesome picture. The branch is no problem.--Dakota t e 03:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support The branch is an interesting foreground Glaurung 07:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. I also think the branch is an asset. —Cryptic (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Support original only. Version 2 is visibly edited, even without the comparing the original, and the leaf doesn't detract enough from the image to justify altering reality. I'd have no objection to the edits for contrast if they were applied to a version with the leaf. —Cryptic (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Very Nice. -- LogicX 01:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Great pic. Lorax 02:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Good composition, great pic. --Dschwen 15:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • Now that this image manipulation/falsification thing seems to really take off here: Support original, strongly Oppose edits. It is an encyclopedia for crying out loud, we should faeature real pictures if they are pretty, not doctored photoshop orgies. Aditionally the edit leaves a murky washed-out area behind. --Dschwen 15:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks for the support there. I have to admit I don't really like the edit - partially because its like the corruption of my child. ;) But I still stand by my comments in other FPCs - gross manipulation and deception based on omission is not OK in my opinion. I do, however, support minor contrust/sharpness/noise/colour adjustments if they don't detract from the original intention of the photo. Besides the actual removal of the branch, I'm not sure if I prefer the contrast adjustment in the case of the third edit, as the original scene was quite misty due to the waterfall. The contrast adjustment, while making the scene 'appear' less foggy, has created deep shadows and removed detail. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 04:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well OK, I can certainly see your point. But I look at it this way, like noise or dust spots etc, an unwanted element should be removed. I don't know if you'd agree, but I think that I definetly improved Image:Globe and high court.jpg by the removal of the branch: Image:Globe and high court fix.jpg. I don't want to seem like I don't appreciate the beauty of your photo I do, but leaving something which can so easily be fixed doesn't appeal to me. So I respect your feelings regarding the matter and I hope you'll respect mine. --Fir0002 08:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I see your point, but noise and dust weren't there in the reality the picture should try to capture (any picture). It is perfectly ok to adjust contrast and color tone as long as the purpose is to reproduce the conditions when the pic was taken, cameras are not perfect and tend to falsify colortemp and contrast. So I'd call that adjusting the representation of reality, which I'm totally ok with. But when you start manipulating the subject of the image itself I have to apply the emergency brake. Such precedents must be avoided. Besides that I actually think the leaf adds a feeling of imersion into the rainforrest to the pic. Sorry if this gets annoying, but I feel pretty strong about this matter. Maybe we should continue the discussion on the Talkpage, since it applies to other nominees as well. --Dschwen 19:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agree with your sentiments there Dschwen. It concerns me that Fir0002 feels that so many photos need to be 'fixed'. Aesthetics is a very subjective and personal thing, as can be seen by the varying opinions on whether it looks 'better' with or without the branch, but as I've said previously - this is photography for an encyclopaedia, not a competition. Sure, there is an element of that since we're voting for the purpose of elevating an image above the mediocre, but ultimately, photography is about the right exposure, framing and timing - the elements that are in your control at the moment you press the shutter. I completely agree that colour balance, contrast, noise and sharpening (and when necessary, perhaps cropping and rotating) for the purpose of representing the scene as it appeared should be the extent of the editing performed here. Anything more would be a misrepresentation of reality, as you said. The question remains in my mind - should this be discussed further and perhaps policy further refined, or should it remain at the discretion of individuals on a per-image basis? A similar issue has already been up for discussion on the FPC page, but this issue is a little different - not whether the author should request an image to remain unedited, but whether particular editing should be discouraged or refrained from... Food for thought anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support — wonderful! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ( + ) Support Either Version 2 or 3. Great photo, but to me the leaf spoils it, so I have added two edits. Version two is obviously just the leaf removal, second version has additional contrasting. --Fir0002 23:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support either 2 or 3. I agree that it's better without the leaf. Enochlau 00:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support friggin awesome, all of them. Could you edit the dimensions to make it more wallpaper-friendly? Borisblue 02:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support any of the versions. I have no problem with the leaf there, but I have no problem with it being removed either. Raven4x4x 06:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support any version. Stunning - JustinWick 00:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support original The leaves well out of the way of the main subject of the picture; editing it is unnecessary. -- uberpenguin 22:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Original -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support original only - we're messing too much with Mother Nature as is... ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support the original only, I agree with Uberpenguin that the editing is unnecessary and doesn't add anything to the picture. Where the edit improves the image (e.g. tilting) then I have no problem with it, but things should only be removed when there is a need to have them removed. Thryduulf 16:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support first version only. The branch wasn't obtrusive enough to merit taking out. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 21:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support orignal. Nice image. Oppose later versions. Removal of branch removes the "closed in" and otherwise makes the corner look unbalanced with the rest of the image, but more importantly the photographer doesn't really like the change. As for the third, I'm as much of a sucker for a contrasty image as anyone else, but it's a misty scene.. it's not supposted to pop. --Gmaxwell 06:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support original only. A beautiful scene, and I don't see the point of trying to make it more so by taking parts out. Anyway, I feel that branch added to the image. Sarge Baldy 18:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support original only. Oppose later versions. --Canthusus 09:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promoted Image:Image:Hopetoun_falls.jpg - The original is definately the one with consensus. Raven4x4x 05:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Hopetoun_falls.jpg&oldid=1145606279"