Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fredmeyer edit 1.jpg

I saw this image when I came across the Supermarket page and was stunned by it. It gives a perspective that a) most people never see and b) gives a lot of information on the scene. It is difficult to appreciate a supermarket from any other angle you would usually see a photo from. Also, it is visually impressive with the rows upon rows of neatly stacked and shelved items; caught my attention straight away. The quality is great with no artefacts or blurriness, and is 2800x1853. Cheers.

• Nominate and support. - DarkSideOfTheSpoon 08:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Very nice, but a touch blurry. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Wow. That's an awsome picture, although I agree that it's a bit blurry per Dark Side of the Spoon. --Iriseyes 16:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The grain and blurriness take a lot away from it. Certainly an interesting picture, but not a featured picture. Imaninjapirate 18:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per DarkSideOfTheSpoon. --SonicChao ^talk 20:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too blurry. Reminds me of Andreas Gursky's '99 Cent'. Pstuart84 20:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Lots of "wow" factor...but maybe a little too overwhelming. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 22:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I really like this method of displaying a great variety of item. My one question, and this is a serious one. Can a photo that is basically 100's of copyrighted logos be free-liscensed? Sorta Campbell's Soup Cans to the extreme. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the logos in this picture are "incidental" as they are not the subject of the photo. Thereby they would not be copyright restricted. This would be the same as if we had a picture of a person with branded clothing - the picutre is about the person not the clothing so it is ok. Witty lama 23:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I like it! It makes a refreshingly different FP imho. StephenFalken 22:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, lots of little spots of glare and burriness. It's a cool shot in concept, but the technical issues throw it off for me. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Night Gyr. I especially noticed problems by soda on black left by the pole. I do like the idea. gren グレン 06:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 - I like this picture. Despite some minor technical flaws I think its quality and encyclopedic interest justify its promotion to FP. Alvesgaspar 14:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Edit 1. As others have mentioned, this image has flaws but it is an unusual and interesting view of supermarket shelves. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Unique subject matter, visually & cognitively arresting. I don’t think minor focus flaws overwhelm its strong points. Spyforthemoon 18:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original version. I think it's better than 99 cents. The only things that bug me are the pillars in the back row, but that's a minor distraction. It captures the essence of a hypermarket extremely well. ~ trialsanderrors 19:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I like the original more too. I think it is because it seems more realistic of supermarkets with those horrible yellow lights. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 06:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't most supermarkets have fluorescent lighting which tends to be quite a cool color? In any case, unless the colour tint is extreme, the eye usually compensates for it, so a neutral color balance is usually closest to what you see. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edited version has a bit too much of a natural light flavor for my taste. Also, the original reminds me of the horrible beige/yellow shelves Walgreen uses, and I'm guess Fred Meyer too. ~ trialsanderrors 08:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support Edit 1. Reasonable quality. NauticaShades 07:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very interesting picture that catches the eye. Very worthy FP. --Tobyw87 08:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Edit 1, vastly improved by the color correction. Robotsintrouble 10:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 I wish my cupboard looked like that. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, because of the noise and blur. Great shot, but the technical issues are a big minus.--ragesoss 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support edit 1, interesting picture, colour correction surely helps a lot. - Mailer Diablo 19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose, blur. Redquark 20:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per quality of picture. Sharkface217 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, that's really cool. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh so close, but oppose (both). I love the composition and it's wonderfully encyclopedic, but it's just not sharp enough for FP. It should be possible to take essentially the same photo, but with better focus, so this one cannot be FP.--DaveOinSF 05:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Support edit 1. Very blurry especially at the back near the soda. I'd like to see it sampled down to maybe 85% of its current resolution for better quality. --froth^{T C} 18:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1. Although some technical issues, very interesting subject --Fir0002 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Fredmeyer edit 1.jpg Raven4x4x 04:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]