51:
418:
Unmodified would be my preferred vote on VPC, since we're not worried much about technical issues but more EV issues and slightly blurry doesn't dramatically hurt the EV. The only issue I would have there is that the image focuses mostly on the structure and not the pond, and I would consider an
153:
Regrettably it's a good photograph but the image is quite dramatically out of focus and there isn't enough resolution to downsample it to correct for that and keep it within FP guidelines. Interesting building and setting though, so I would of supported if it wasn't so out of focus.
404:
there is no minimum, 800x533 COULD pass, but then again down-sampling just to make it look a bit sharper would be looked down upon there as much as it is here. And at VPC we weight MUCH more on EV, and the EV concerns I listed below would come into play.
187:
The EV is very high, but the focus isn't there and the reflection of the shrubs in the background draws the attention of the viewer, this could have been avoided by photographing the subject from a different angle (standing slightly more to the
419:
image showing more of the pond higher EV since although the structure is a main feature of the lily pool, it is afterall the lily pool the article is about. Not sure the image contributes alot of EV to the other articles though. —
436:
I doubt it'd be hard to retake this with better camera settings (higher DOF, better lighting) and improved composition. If you're only thinking VP, is this something you could go down and do yourself Tony?
222:
I also love this image, but as others have said when viewed at full size the BG looks distorted and even the foreground. If you can sharpen it up a bit you've definitely got my support. --
90:
540:
I don't want to oppose since that would just be piling on but I'd also like to comment on how sad it is that this does not meet the standards since it has such great EV.
608:
94:
102:
598:
17:
603:
495:
Didn't I help you with some baseball pitcher picture that you took a couple of years back which became an FP? What was that done with? --
469:
374:
316:
250:
128:
584:
566:
548:
504:
486:
446:
427:
413:
391:
351:
333:
294:
280:
267:
231:
214:
197:
179:
162:
145:
473:
378:
320:
254:
132:
78:
58:
580:
465:
370:
312:
246:
124:
526:. Stinks because the photograph has fantastic EV, but enlarged it's really too out of focus to be an FP.
86:
50:
170:
Per raeky. Interesting subject, nice angle, too dark, way too out of focus. Shortcomings not fixable.
531:
477:
382:
324:
258:
136:
456:
347:
227:
576:
545:
210:
193:
460:
365:
307:
241:
119:
481:
386:
328:
262:
140:
290:
236:
I was under the impression that the problems are not repairable. Should I take this to the
175:
62:
401:
361:
562:
527:
500:
442:
82:
237:
343:
223:
592:
541:
206:
189:
286:
171:
558:
496:
438:
421:
407:
274:
156:
49:
459:. To date, I have not gotten a VP credit with this camera.--
306:
Downsampled to 800x533 would this stand a chance at VPC?--
285:
Indeed. When downsampled 50%, it is still out of focus.
91:
National
Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago
35:
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.
342:
1000px by height or width is the minimum I think. --
360:That is the minimum here at FPC, I am asking about
557:to free up space, clearly won't pass from here. --
103:Knowledge (XXG):Featured pictures/Places/Others
95:List of National Historic Landmarks in Illinois
57:- The Pavilion atop a stone outcropping at the
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
400:Oops, I didn't answer that question, at
609:Featured picture nominations/June 2010
7:
75:Articles in which this image appears
599:Ended featured picture nominations
205:as per all above, out of focus...
24:
272:The focus is irreparable... —
1:
604:Featured picture nominations
625:
99:FP category for this image
295:22:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
281:21:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
268:20:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
232:20:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
215:08:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
198:02:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
180:01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
163:01:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
146:01:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
79:Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool
59:Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool
28:Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool
585:05:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
567:05:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
549:19:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
505:09:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
487:16:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
455:I use a point and shoot
447:14:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
428:15:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
414:01:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
392:05:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
352:05:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
334:04:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
72:This is a high EV image
110:flickr user Digitalley
65:
39:Voting period ends on
87:Lincoln Park, Chicago
53:
116:Support as nominator
457:Canon PowerShot TX1
66:
485:
390:
332:
266:
144:
47:
616:
463:
368:
310:
244:
122:
63:Lincoln Park Zoo
38:
36:
624:
623:
619:
618:
617:
615:
614:
613:
589:
588:
83:Alfred Caldwell
37:
34:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
622:
620:
612:
611:
606:
601:
591:
590:
573:Not promoted
570:
569:
551:
535:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
490:
489:
450:
449:
431:
430:
416:
395:
394:
355:
354:
337:
336:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
283:
217:
200:
182:
165:
148:
112:
111:
108:
105:
100:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
76:
73:
70:
45:01:23:38 (UTC)
33:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
621:
610:
607:
605:
602:
600:
597:
596:
594:
587:
586:
582:
578:
577:Makeemlighter
574:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
550:
547:
543:
539:
536:
533:
529:
525:
522:
521:
506:
502:
498:
494:
493:
492:
491:
488:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
462:
458:
454:
453:
452:
451:
448:
444:
440:
435:
434:
433:
432:
429:
426:
425:
424:
417:
415:
412:
411:
410:
403:
399:
398:
397:
396:
393:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
367:
363:
359:
358:
357:
356:
353:
349:
345:
344:I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ
341:
340:
339:
338:
335:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
309:
305:
302:
296:
292:
288:
284:
282:
279:
278:
277:
271:
270:
269:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
243:
239:
235:
234:
233:
229:
225:
224:I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ
221:
218:
216:
212:
208:
204:
203:Strong Oppose
201:
199:
195:
191:
186:
183:
181:
177:
173:
169:
166:
164:
161:
160:
159:
152:
149:
147:
142:
138:
134:
130:
126:
121:
117:
114:
113:
109:
106:
104:
101:
98:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
77:
74:
71:
68:
67:
64:
60:
56:
52:
48:
46:
42:
29:
26:
19:
572:
571:
555:speedy close
554:
537:
523:
461:TonyTheTiger
422:
420:
408:
406:
366:TonyTheTiger
308:TonyTheTiger
303:
275:
273:
242:TonyTheTiger
219:
202:
184:
167:
157:
155:
150:
120:TonyTheTiger
115:
54:
44:
40:
32:
27:
185:Weak Oppose
593:Categories
478:WP:CHICAGO
383:WP:CHICAGO
325:WP:CHICAGO
259:WP:CHICAGO
137:WP:CHICAGO
41:9 Jul 2010
553:Suggest
542:Cat-five
207:Gazhiley
190:Iankap99
55:Original
538:Comment
482:WP:FOUR
387:WP:FOUR
329:WP:FOUR
304:Comment
263:WP:FOUR
220:Comment
188:left)--
141:WP:FOUR
107:Creator
61:in the
524:Oppose
402:WP:VPC
362:WP:VPC
287:Greg L
172:Greg L
168:Oppose
151:Oppose
69:Reason
559:jjron
528:Amphy
497:jjron
439:jjron
423:raeky
409:raeky
276:raeky
238:WP:GL
158:raeky
16:<
581:talk
563:talk
546:talk
532:talk
501:talk
443:talk
348:talk
291:talk
228:talk
211:talk
194:talk
176:talk
474:BIO
379:BIO
364:.--
321:BIO
255:BIO
240:?--
133:BIO
43:at
595::
583:)
575:--
565:)
544:-
503:)
484:)
445:)
437:--
405:—
389:)
350:)
331:)
293:)
265:)
230:)
213:)
196:)
178:)
154:—
143:)
118:--
579:(
561:(
534:)
530:(
499:(
480:/
476:/
472:/
470:C
468:/
466:T
464:(
441:(
385:/
381:/
377:/
375:C
373:/
371:T
369:(
346:(
327:/
323:/
319:/
317:C
315:/
313:T
311:(
289:(
261:/
257:/
253:/
251:C
249:/
247:T
245:(
226:(
209:(
192:(
174:(
139:/
135:/
131:/
129:C
127:/
125:T
123:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
