Talk:Mazda CX-9

What Would You Prefer?

Would you prefer the one from Montreal?

Or this?

You decide! -- Bull-Doser 13:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the Manual of Style to my knowledge does not address the issue of photographic image quality in order to judge two candidate images in a fair and neutral way. The only way to judge photographs then is with reasonable (but subjective) judgements using some general journalistic photography standards that one would find in any book on photography, or learn in perhaps a course or two on the subject of photography. The general photographic guidelines on composition, lighting, exposure, focusing, aperature vs frame speed, etc. are not that difficult to grasp. Unfortunately, the arrival of cheap and pathetic digital cameras - and worse: cell phones with "cameras" - have turned millions of well meaning folks into sub-amateurish pseudo-photographers who have no photographic skills and no knowledge of how to make a good photograph. They are now posting their dreadful images by the thousands on the Wikipedia, turning an otherwise informative system into an embarrassing freak show full of wonderful examples of really bad photography. Now - both of these images have serious flaws that make them less than desireable for a good article. One image has people crowding around, blocking a proper holistic view of the entire vehicle. The other looks fresh out of a 1960's Batman show with freakish angles and terrible (although admittedly artistic) lighting. Neither of these are useful as photojournalistic, but they are better than no image. Of the two, the lighter clearer one with natural lighting and normal angles and a couple of spectators is far far better than the one with the crazy clown show neck-twisting offspring of Picasso and Batman angles and creative but wierd lighting effects. Someone around here just needs to get some basic photographic skills in night school, and understand the importance of composition, lighting, focusing on the subject, and setting exposures, frame speed and aperature; and ditch the crappy cell phone camera with a quarter-inch lens, and get a decent photo-journalistic quality camera, and take dozens or hundreds of still shots, and pick the one that tells the best story, or better yet, post several of the best examples and let a consensus choose. Just my humble opinion as a former well trained amateur photographer ... from the generation where that meant "highly skilled" ... as in took classes and studied many books and the works of the great photographers, and produced many hundreds of critically sound photographs - but not making a living of it. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like I don't know how to take an image. See my image on Ford Fusion. But at NAIAS, it is hard to get an image with people in it. Hell, many times I had to ratake images because some asshole withh walk in front of teh camera while I was trying to take an image, so instead of a car, I get some blokes AC/DC shirt. Karrmann 14:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, I put my image back in, cause so far, everyone I have talked to peferred it. Mostly because it is cleaner adn shows the details of the car better. Karrmann