Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tulip Stair

Tulip Stair (Queen's House, Greenwich)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 08:51:04 (UTC)

Reason: It's of enough technical and artistic value (3rd prize at Wiki Loves Monuments UK 2013, 17th place at international Wiki Loves Monuments 2013). Illustrates the geometry of its subject better than existing images (good EV).
Articles in which this image appears: Queen's House
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: Rafesmar

Support as nominator --Rafesmar (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I lightened this image quite a bit as, IMHO, it was very dark (though perfectly exposed). I'm used to just uploading 'over the top' of WP images with an edit. I realize that up there ^^ somewhere it says this isn't good practice. Feel free to bend my ear/revert my edits/discuss. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In truth, I think I prefer the original version (totally untouched and straight out of camera, not that I'm againgst editing...). Maybe it's because that's how I remember the place, or maybe it's because I'm more used to that version. Also, I think the lightened version it's losing detail in some of the upper stairs. Anyway, I really appreciate your input: thank you. Rafesmar (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after much faffing I managed to upload a derivative. nagualdesign (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- As an artistic photograph to be viewed at large size, it is lovely. As an encyclopedic photograph, it's uses are limited. It has indeed been included in a number of articles (Queen's House, Greenwich), where it looks bad at thumbnail size. The caption has a full description of the way in which the stair treads support each other, but the treads themselves cannot be seen in the darkness, even though they are majorly present in the image. Amandajm (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to yours and Rafesmar's comments I've edited my version to increase local contrast, in order to make the treads stand out better. This is a less-than-subtle edit, as it's intended to improve the image at thumbnail size. Viewed full screen it's still good (I hope), but directly comparing it to my previous version may cause mild alarm. nagualdesign (talk) 06:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I've removed it from two articles which already had a photo of the stairs. Although this photo is technically better than the other existing one, it looks less good in thumbnail as it is so dark and has more stairs. If one insists on restoring it then please replace the existing one. But the Stairs article could be illustrated with hundreds of possible spiral stairs. Yes, there is a Commons guideline against uploading over the other images in many circumstances -- especially for prize-winning photos and non-trivial edits. First attempt should always be to ask the creator if they can make changes, which are nearly always superior to fiddling with the JPG. I think the edited version gives a false impression of what the stairs look like -- as they will be naturally dark from below and when looking up at the roof light. Therefore I do not support its use in the article even if it does bring out extra detail. I suggest Rafesmar tries Commons FP where the in-article usage is not important and the artistic qualities are more relevant. -- Colin°^Talk 11:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]