Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Genesis on egg.jpg

Genesis on egg (updated version)

Self-nom; I took the picture last summer in Jerusalem. It's used in the Genesis and B'reishit articles; this is the cropped version; there's also a larger one.

Nominate and support. - СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 02:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, by the way, this picture (or the non-cropped version - I can't remember) won the Wikimedia photo competion in August, in the Special Images Division.

So special is what we're calling weird now? ;-) Sadly the picture is a little on the small side (especially the subject in the center). Can you comment on the colors? Bad whitebalance or was it really orange-yellow?--Dschwen 07:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the encyclopedic value of this image, apart from looking pretty? enochlau (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I don't agree with the yellow. enochlau (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
( + ) Support Nice --Fir0002 05:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That isn't clear, at all, and the background is grainy. The background could be completely blurred using Photoshop and it wouldn't diminish the quality of the egg... drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 06:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (both) Not stunning or captivating, and doesn't do much for the article, either. If it was a electron microscope shot of Gen:1 engraved on a pinhead, well, maybe then... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, artefacts in background in both thumbnail and hi-res version. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Egg is much too small in its frame, odd colours - Adrian Pingstone 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)'[reply]
Support. Striking enough to get people to read an article. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-19 17:23
Oppose The egg looks as if it is tilted to one side. --Ali K 11:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I laid a grid over it and it doesn't appear to be tilted. Maybe an optical illusion? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-20 19:35
Oppose - nothing too special to show and what a horrible backdrop. --Thorpe | talk 19:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've uploaded a new version that I think addresses some of the concerns here (background problems, graininess, coloring/contrast changes as well). Compare old and new (make sure to CTRL+F5 on the new version to refresh). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-20 19:35

New version still does not address the question of color temperature. And the egg still has a low pixel count.--Dschwen 23:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Maybe I just played too much with ray tacers, but I like it, including the colors. I don't know much about the subject, but I guess the composition with the small egg somehow supports it. Zarniwoot 02:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great picture, I guess a little lacking on the encylcopedic value, though. Dylan 04:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support totally. Neutrality^talk 05:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm just not wowed.--Deglr6328 10:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose The entire picture is basically the background. I uploaded a cropped version to illustrate my point here. If it is cropped to just show the subject, then it is too small for FP. Also, the text looks grainy, and it blends in with the background. --liquidGhoul 13:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Last time I checked, we had some featured pictures this size, and smaller. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-23 22:46

They were generally when the standards were lower, or you had to restrict image size because of server limitations. I have not seen one this size get through since I have been here. --liquidGhoul 03:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the background. Otherwise it's just a boring egg. Zarniwoot 06:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, why are you supporting a background? --liquidGhoul 07:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you have against backgrounds? :-) I think it add some kind of peace to the picture. The motive looks isolated and small, which I think is the point, but also somehow more important. If the picture was in the Writing very small letters on eggs article, i would prefer your edit. Zarniwoot 12:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So all we have to do to a small picture, is to add an overly large background, and it will get featured? --liquidGhoul 12:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was not what I said. I usually prefer when all unnecessary objects are croppet out, but every picture should be considered individually. Maybe we can just agree that we disagree on this one? Zarniwoot 15:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Agree with liquidGhoul. --Dschwen 13:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks nice. Palm_Dogg 07:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not such a great image. Also, at least as importannt, it does not add significantly to the article. Junes 13:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the picture, but I'm not sure it adds to much to the Genesis article. Perhaps if it were under some form of art, it would be stronger.

The above vote was by Jonthecheet --liquidGhoul 07:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that mistake--Jonthecheet 01:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]