Reason

The image is of a high technical quality, comparable to commercial images and adds greatly to the articles in which it is included. Simple composition (the vehicle set against mist rising off a lake and strongly colored ground surface) ensures the vehicle is the focal point. It is well lit, has little to no noise that occurs when using high ISO and is of high resolution. It is also of a uniquely high standard for Wikipedia. I beleive this image meets the Wikipedia feature picture criteria, being of a high technical standard, high resolution, among Wikipedia's best work (among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer), having a free license and adding value to an article.

Articles this image appears in

Toyota Aurion , Toyota Australia , Toyota , Large family car

Creator

User:Capital photographer

• Support as nominator Capital photographer (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice as a product photo... but... At 100%, you can see funny artifacts, particularly in the dirt/grass, and I don't think it is just JPEG artifacting (although I suspect it is contributing, as 1.6mb seems a bit small for an image of these dimensions). I'm not positive but it looks a bit like the image has been upsized fractally. Surely this is not the typical output of a 1Ds III? In any case, it is still detailed enough for FP requirements but I wanted to point this out and ask why. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your feedback. The image was taken using a Canon 1Ds mkIII with EF 24-105mm IS USM lens. The original RAW files were imported to Aperture and then exported to Photoshop CS3 for processing and output. Because the RAW files and working PSD files are so large (PSDs around 400mb), it becomes very time consuming to work with them so for this application were it would be viewed online, I exported the images to Photoshop as JPEGs, edited and then saved as JPEG (quality 8) again. So the image has being compressed to JPEG twice which to some extend explains the presence of artifacts at 100% view. I deemed such results to be acceptable for use on the web. Also, when shooting, I was using around ISO 1200 due to variable light. I used nik Define 2.0 to clean up the noise but some ISO noise still remains. I can assure you that the image has not being upscaled in anyway, with 21MP original images, there's no need to. The image was cropped at the top and bottom.Capital photographer (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, that explains it then. Its the noise reduction and compression. I didn't realise the scene was so dark, although working with JEPGs and saving multiple times with 8 quality is almost as bad as downsizing then upsizing in terms of work flow. ;-) I always work with 16 bit TIFF files to do any post processing as the effect of any changes is minimal on quality. And you think 400mb PSD files are bad.. That Hong Kong panorama I recently uploaded was a single layer 1.2gb TIFF file before I downsized and saved as JPEG! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 1.2GB! Wow, makes one feel small. Normally working with big files isn't an issue for me, even HDR rojects, I usually use a 8-core Mac Pro with 4GB of RAM and a 30" ACD. Due to renovations, the Mac Pro is in storage for a month and I'm having to use a 15" Macbook Pro with only 2GB of RAM. Running Aperture and PS3 at the same time is quite a challenge for it. Capital photographer (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Capital photographer (talk • contribs) 15:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you could have afforded to drop to ISO 400 given you were shooting a stationary object at 1/320s, you could use a tripod and shoot at ISO 100. The 1DS3 may be the highest rez 35mm body available, but its not the best high ISO performer as a result. As far as the artifacts go - unless you have a really underpowered computer, the files aren't that unmanageable. It's an awful waste to shoot something with a $7000 camera body and then go through 2 stages of jpeg compression to save 2 minutes extra waiting for photoshop to work on a TIFF, certainly when the resulting artifacts remains this visible. You could also export a smaller tiff from Aperture, say 2400x1600 instead of a full size jpeg. Just some suggestions, not trying to be harsh. Mfield (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Completely agree with Mfield here - I was going to say a similar thing. Saving 'for the web' isn't really appropriate here, as Mediawiki will resize/compress the images itself when displaying on a page anyway, and many people are interested in quality detail at 100% magnification, which is spoiled by lazy editing. Oh, and I've only got 4 cores but 8MB RAM along with the same 30" screen. I'd go for the extra RAM over extra cores anyday. Its not like 4 cores at 3.4ghz isn't fast enough for most image processing. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure why TIFF keeps coming up? Originals are RAW and working files and final outputs are PSD for me. TIFF has issues of cross platform computability that I like to steer clear of and doesn't support Layers from nik software filters. When I'm doing work for print and large scale digital display, I work for hours to make it as good as can be, to get the most from a $12,000 investment. Working with Photoshop and Aperture both open is a strain for any system with less than 4GB of memory, mainly because Aperture's database engine isn't well developed. Amendment: Image was taken at ISO 800, there are two versions of this shot in Aperture and one was 1200. This is ISO800. I will upload a new version processed using only RAW and PSD. Capital photographer (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I used the term TIFF as analogous to 16 bit lossless in this context. You can pick the format of your choice. :-) The point was that 8-bit JPEG isn't ideal to do post processing with. Looking forward to seeing what the new version is like. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, okay, because I normally use PSD due to the new non-destructive filters in CS3 which don't work well with TIFF+layers. My normal workflow is 16bit lossless, using PSD files around 300-600mb. I guess I get lazy when it comes to images for the web, a bad habit. Capital photographer (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason I said TIFF is because I would normally convert RAW-16 bit TIFF, open the TIFF in PS, Edit, Save as PSD with layers, as flattened TIFF over the unedited one and as a jpeg for web etc. I'm not sure why but I feel happier with a third party RAW converter generating a TIFF file rather than a PSD directly. I know a lot of other people work the same way. I also know I'd rather not have images only stored in a file format controlled by a closed company such as Adobe. That's why i would store a PSD a TIFF and a jpeg. Storage is so cheap its sensible to keep all the versions of important images. Mfield (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support I oppose this original, but if you can upload a new version without the horrible jpg artifacts, and remove the dirt specks on the front bumper and the round dot in the sky at upper left, I'll support. (Am I correct in assuming that you've added the Aurion text to the license plate? It looks a bit artificial. PS: Do I see four swans in the fog? )--Janke | Talk 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still opposing new versions, the "overbleeding burn" on the windshield is still visible, and the contrast and color were changed for the worse, IMO. --Janke | Talk 07:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Have uploaded new version, created entirely using my regular 16bit workflow. Original 14bit RAW converted to 16bit PSD (Adobe RGB) finally saved to sRGB JPEG (quality10) for the web. Size reduced to 8MP from original 16MP crop. Looks to have far less compression artifacts and more definition. Colours are also more realistic as I did more to ensure accuracy when changing from Adobe RGB to sRGB for web version. Also, I cloned out the 4 swans and a water hen that were a distraction in the mist and removed all possible dirt from bumper and surrounding image. You are correct about the text on the numberplate, inserted to disguise the real numberplate and intended to look better than the blocky pixelation most ad. I blurred the text a bit to make it look more original but at full view (100%), the trained eye can tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capital photographer (talk • contribs) 16:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, looks much better. I can see you've introduced a slightly warmer tint on the car (not really a problem though, and as you say, it might be more accurate), but... I can see what looks like an enormous burn (probably about 1/3 the height of the image) on and around the windscreen that leaks onto the grey background. ;-) You can see it as a subtle dark blob if you're looking for it in the thumbnail. To be honest I probably wouldn't have noticed it if I couldn't compare to the original, but it is somewhat distracting now that I have! By the way, what are you doing up at 2am AEST? Wikiholic already? :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually 3am, um, planned to go to bed a while ago but too much to do with college going back next week. Regarding the burn on the windscreen, not sure about that. I see some odd distortion which is a reflection on the windshield but nothing seems to bleed into the background on my display. I certainly didn't do any burning on either version so I'm puzzled. Might have to calibrate my screen again. Colours are warmer in the new version,much more realistic. Another pitful of repeated JPEG compression, colour info gets lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capital photographer (talk • contribs) 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is what I mean. Left is the new image and right is the old one. I messed with the levels to accentuate the burn, but its clearly visible in the image once you know what you're looking for. It looks like you've burned the windscreen to make it darker in the new image, but as a result also darkened a big blob outside of the car. Also, don't forget to sign with the four tildes. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comparison certainly shows its there. I did some screen setting changes and found I had to turn the brightness down to see it in the regular thumbnails. Again, I didn't do any burning at all to the image. The only thing I can think of is the noise reduction may have analysed that area of the image and the changes bled out a bit. The noise reduction did darken the windows a bit. I have adjusted the image and it doesn't seem to be visible anymore. Capital photographer (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support edit Good technical quality, but it just doesn't pop out at me. I have no real reason to oppose, but I don't see what makes it FP worthy, either. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your feedback. Personally, I think the colour palette and composition do make it (the vehicle) stand out quite well and the image eye catching in the articles it is used, but I would agree it's not an overly exciting image... it is just a car after all. I could make it much more exciting, but that would be more artsy than encyclopedic. One reason I think it deserves FP is because it shows how good images of vehicles for articles on Wikipedia can be, with simple, focused composition and good (natural) lighting. Take a look at the car pics in these articles for example Ford Falcon (Australia), Mercedes-Benz S-Class, Mitsubishi Magna. In these four random articles including one for one of the best cars on the road, most are poorly composed and exposed. Only a couple which look to be taken from official marketing sources are good. So I propose that my shot, taken using only a camera of a car parked in a woodland area of the city, easily accomplished by anyone with a camera shows how good a car shot can be and would hopefully prompt people to leave behind the current norm of car shots on Wikipedia depicting vehicles in poor lighting with distracting elements such as other cars around it. Capital photographer (talk) 06:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right that a lot of the car images on Wikipedia are very ordinary. I had a bit of a try a couple of years back with a Mazda6, just shooting with a Canon A95, but was never totally happy that I got quite what I wanted with composition and lighting (especially in the sky) - Image:2003Mazda6-McMillansLookout.jpg. Still it's been lead image in the article for almost two years, but I've never got around to doing a better shoot. --jjron (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Even edit 2 looks like it has compression artefacts (check the back of the mirror, image center). Furthermore, I'm not convinced that the image is properly sharp - there seems to be some fuzziness towards the rear of the car. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit 2 and Edit 1 were both saved to JPEG from the original 700MB 16bit PSD. There would be no more compression artifacts unless your browser has JPEG support issues (JPEGs above quality10 can sometimes look weird in older browsers). Are you sure you're not confusing compression artifacts with ISO noise? There is some on the edge of the mirror and some drops of water on the mirror too.
    • If it's noise, then that's just as bad. If they're drops of water, I don't see them anywhere else on the vehicle, which would need some explaining. And let's not brush over the issues with sharpness. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The noise is confined to a very small area on the left edge of the left hand mirror and is only noticable if viewed at 100% with your nose almost touching the screen. The drops of water were originally over much of the car, I was driving through mist. The shape of the mirror and the indicator on the mirror tends to cause water to dry there last where as air flow over the rest of the car dried it quickly. Some water was present on the other mirror, under the spoiler and the trunk lid, again, both issues are noticable only on very very close inspection. Capital photographer (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Neutral still the composition, but quality is now great. Mainly because of the placement of the horizon. It is just to strong of a horizontal line dividing the picture. Then there are the more minor concerns of poor background, and compression artifacts. Light on the car is good, but what is with the overcast BG... Heres my problem: The actual ground ends shortly after the back of the car (either the start of a slope or cliff or something) and the clouds are right there, it feels like the car is being crowded by the BG. On a side note, you lucky bastards (Diliff and Capital photographer) ;-). I have to do my workflow, stitching and editing on a G4 iMac and a slightly more powerful G4 PowerBook. Try doing perspective correction on 12000px files with those. ;-). -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 15:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vehicle is parked on the shore of a lake and the white background is very heavy mist rising off the water. The use of such a horizon in an image to break up an otherwise bland background is quite a common one in commercial images of vehicles. I think the composition does not reduce the focus on the vehicle and is far less distracting than the many vehicle images which have strong shadows and other objects in frame, this is even more evident if you look at the image in the article Toyota Aurion, however composition is a personal preference so thank you none-the-less for the feedback.
• Support. The quality is without a doubt sufficient to pass FP standards. There a few issues, but they are minor enough not to detract significantly from the image. The composition for this car still is far superior to the average shot, and since (as far as I can tell) we have no FPs of this kind, this one deserves a promotion. NauticaShades 23:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The subject is to bland to be something worthy of a featured picture. Lipton sale (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet again, someone judging the subject instead of judging the image against FP criteria. It's a car. The image of the vehicle is above average for the topic on Wikipedia and meets FP criteria. Diagrams of engines that I consider bland have being FP but they met FP criteria even if I didn't find them exciting. I move this vote be struck as some were in an above submission for a historic document where people judged the subject rather than the merit of the image according to FP criteria. Also, the user is a possible troll. Capital photographer (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 2 the only objection would be that it's free advertising for toyota Thisglad (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems to meet FP criteria to me. But the steering wheel's on the wrong side! (wink) Spikebrennan (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Meets the criteria, although as stated on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, the front wheels are not aligned to the body of the car. This however, is only really relevant to the project, not the featured picture criteria. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, but oppose the edits. The original hue is far better, and the little stones on the ground are of no concern. Dorftrottel (troll) 19:18, April 30, 2008
• Oppose - I am no photographer so I can't comment on the techinical aspects of the photograph. However, the Toyota Aurion is just another mass-marketed saloon of no specific importance to the car industry as a whole. I know I should not be commenting on the subject of the photo but, the fact is that with such an unimportant subject, a highly detailed photograph would be no more informative than a snapshot. By inference, the photograph has no encyclopaedic value.84.69.242.57 (talk)—Preceding comment was added at 19:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • IP voters do not have suffrage. Pstuart84 Talk 11:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it to the image, not the subject. Besides, the Aurion is notable, the most fuel efficient and most powerful Australian V6. Praised my motoring groups as a better alternative to the fuel guzzling Holden and Ford models. Capital photographer (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's just a car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerrittk (talk • contribs) 20:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to adress the subject rather than the image. Capital photographer (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, who made you judge, jury and executioner in your short time active on this project? Try and stay out of it as nominator I suggest. You can't be so emotional about images of your own you have nominated. Other people have a right to object to them. It's not up to you to try and offset every objection with a comment. Certainly you have no right to tell anyone to disregard an objection. Mfield (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the people on here are smart enough to make up their own mind whether to accept an objection or not. I do have a right however to offer my opinion if I feel an objection is not based on FP criteria, as these two above are. Of course people have a right to object. I should ask, are you an admin or person of authority? Capital photographer (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You do have the right to offer your opinion, but you don't have the right to put a Stroke [1].As an example, take a look at this: [2], Later it was reverted to this: [3]. You are right, people are smart enough to judge whether the vote should be valid. When this happens, more people will vote in order to counteract with the votes they think its unreasonable. -βαςε_LXIV™ 10:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Note on my opposition: I should have elaborated a little more. I meant it is merely a car. It is not a car driving through a slalom or parked in an area surrounded by something interesting. Example: flowers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerrittk (talk • contribs) 22:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah, ok, thanks for your feedback then. The original wording sounded very much like a crtisism of the subject, but it is quite a genuine comment about composition. THanks for the clarification. Capital photographer (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too much noise on the windshield and tyres. -βαςε_LXIV™ 07:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems a bit smeared at 100% but photos like these are not meant to be viewed at 100% anyway, otherwise a great product shot which we seriously lack. --antilived^{T | C | G} 03:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The background and the colour of the car are very similar, which I find distracting. I don't think the image is sufficiently sharp and I find the choice of location a little odd. Pstuart84 Talk 23:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 12:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]