Four seam fastball delivery by
Chris Young during pregame
bullpen warmup.Edit 1 - adjusted levels so that it's less washed-out; downsampled to reduce artifacts; slight rotateEdit 3 by
jjron - tilt adjustment, crop, sharpen, colour balance, noise reduction (note: replaced low res Edit2 sample version with this)
Reason
This shot captures a
four-seam fastball with enough detail to see the seams on the baseball and the fingers during an action shot of a pitcher's delivery. It is rare level quality and detail on wikipedia to have such clarity of the seams and the fingers in an action shot of a top flight pitcher.
Chris Young is an interesting subject because he is an up and coming pitcher who is the first
Princeton University baseball player to start a
Major League Baseball game since 1961. Since
Wrigley Field is on the short list of favorite baseball stadiums (with
Yankee Stadium and
Fenway Park) the backdrop of the old fashioned scoreboard (note the scoreboard only has room for 24 teams even though baseball has expanded 3 times to 30 teams since the scoreboard was added) adds interesting context to the picture. Its old fashioned layout with open
bullpens in foul territory (instead of enclosed as is more common) allowed me and the viewer to look on along with the bullpen coach.
Comment — Are you sure that you have the rights to license this photo as CC? I've taken plenty of pictures in Fenway, but I'm not allowed to release them under any CC license without express permission from the Park (it's part of the agreement on the back side of the admission ticket). Sorry to be a downer, but I think that's why we don't have more baseball-related photos on WP. (I'm going to abstain on the vote, but I think it's a fantastic shot!)
tiZom(2¢) 00:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Reply I don't have express consent. However, I was in contact with the
Padres and
Cubs media relations offices all week before the game. I explained that I (not to diminish
User:Nishkid64's contribution) had written the
Chris Young page. They were unable to get me in with the media because WP is not recognized as a newsgathering entity. I have specifically spoken with the Cubs Director of Media relations and he knew I was coming. My last email from him was at 5:10 PM the day before Young's start. They get in around 7:30 AM for Saturday day games. I left him a message at 8:30 AM. Pregame sales of standing room starts at 9:00 AM. Although summer Saturday Wrigley games are sold out except for standing room, a single $500 market value seat in section 24 mysteriously was available when I got to the ticket window at about 9:05 for face value. After I purchased my ticket they announced standing room only. I am not sure if I could get express consent to release my photo on WP, but if I need to do so, I will check with them.
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)reply
tiZom, even if you are correct, I don't think it affects Wikipedia at all since it's already licensed CC (and he can't revoke that), since although Tim may be in breach of a service agreement it would be his issue.
grenグレン 01:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I respect your opinion, but I'd like to point out that this has already happened with
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eiffel tower nuit — a situation where French law prohibited photos of the Eiffel Tower at night to be licensed freely. We had a huge discussion about it, and it was not promoted because the image was not free. (It was subsequently deleted from the Commons for the same reason —
log).
I'd like to say that, yeah, it's the photographer's problem if it's licensed incorrectly. But that's part of our job too (hence
WP:PUI). If there's a glaring difference between the two cases here, then I will change my vote. But as it stands, I still think we should research the license further before continuing with this nomination.
tiZom(2¢) 03:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)reply
But, that is a law... not the EULA type thing of a corporation. You may be right, I don't really know. And, wow, that French law is stupid.
grenグレン 20:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I dont think the notice gives them any copyrights to your images. Unless they the got your signature on it, it really cant hold up in court.
Chris H 13:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
It's not a copyright issue that we're talking about here, but a matter of contract law. If the ticket stub has such a notice prohibiting commercial use of photos, it can be legally enforced as a contract, in which case he's not allowed to release the photos under the license he did. Now, one might argue that this is an issue solely between the Cubs organization and the photographer with WP as a third party. howcheng {
chat} 22:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Howcheng is correct here, and we have previously denied, delisted and deleted pictures that are crushed by silly local rules like this. Diliff's beautiful picture of the Notre-Dame de Montreal Basilica
was deleted because of the church's insane rule that photos taken with a tripod must be non-commercial, and thus cannot be freely licensed.
♠ SG→Talk 13:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)reply
debate has been suspended per below.
Yanksox 20:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I know it was suspended but in the U.S. I am pretty sure contracts cannot be enforced if the participants didn't have prior knowledge of what they were agreeing to. I don't know like a sign in a restaurant that says "Not responsible for lost or stolen articles." Yes they are, unless I misunderstood something.
IvoShandor 09:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Most likely, the ban on commercial photography is on the back of the ticket stub, which is enforceable as an
adhesion contract. The act of purchasing the ticket constitutes agreement to the contract (I know, it sounds pretty lame, but this has been accepted as a legal standard). howcheng {
chat} 18:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)reply
So the only way to circumvent this, would be to illegally sneak into the game, right? If you didn't purchase a ticket the contract becomes unenforceable I am guessing. Not that people should do that, because it is illegal but if I understand the contract correctly, then it would only be enforceable if you bought a ticket. While sneaking into the game would be a tort, taking pictures wouldn't become so just because of the fact that one is criminally trespassing. Just thought I would throw that out there.
IvoShandor 20:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)reply
"Holder agrees not to transmit or distribute any information about the game or related activities ('Game Information'); agrees Chicago Cubs is exclusive owner of all copyright in Game Information..." Is this not visual information? --
Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! -
<*> 22:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't think photos like this are "game information" in the ordinary sense of the words. It sounds to me like the contract is intended to get around the recent
Motorola decision, which deals with transmitting real-time scores. (See the link for a near-identical clause that the PGA ultimately used successfully to do just that.)
Calliopejen1 22:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Agree with
Calliopejen1. I don't think "game information" applies to photos like this; I would think it applies to the "accounts and descriptions of the game" itself. CillaИ ♦ XC 14:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I would disagree, my Red sox ticket stubs say: "Agree to transmit no game information, including but not limited to: Video, photos, written or recorded accounts/descriptions... blah blah." I think this is what the cubs are saying in two dozen fewer words. -
Fcb981(
talk:
contribs) 02:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. I am fairly certain that consent is unnecessary; "game information" does not by any logic I can think of imply pictures of players. On the other hand, the scan of that ticket is a clear copyvio--could you at least crop it to the relevant text?
Chick Bowen 02:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)reply
There was no sarcasm intended. I do believe consent is unnecessary and that we can feature this photograph; however, the design of the ticket is copyrighted.
Chick Bowen 03:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
??? I didn't read any sarcasm in that whatsoever.
In any case, the ticket I have to a Red Sox game here (which is the thing that started this whole mess) reads:
By use of this ticket, the ticket holder agrees that: (A) He or she shall not transmit or aid in transmitting any information about the game to which it grants permission, including, but not limited to, any account, description, picture, video, audio, reproduction or other information concerning the game (the "game information"); (B) The club issuing the ticket is the exclusive owner of all copyrights and other proprietary rights in the game and game information; and (C) [the right to show your likeness in broadcast]
I can't imagine that rules from park to park would be that different, and one wonders if picture, video, etc. is just assumed to be considered "Game Information".
tiZom(2¢) 12:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Which I just realized
Fcb981 said a few comments up. Sorry Eric!
tiZom(2¢) 12:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
No problem : ) you actually had the real wording while I paraphrased from memory. Somewhat on topic: Boston against Cleveland for the ALCS, do I smell a sweep? ;-) -
Fcb981(
talk:
contribs) 02:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
My guess is that items included in game information mean anything that happens inside the confine of the venue from the time the gates open to the time they close. Warm ups and batting practice would certainly be included in that. Of course, if you didn't purchase the ticket, you didn't really agree to the contract so...
IvoShandor 12:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The ticket for the Cubs is pretty much like every stub, from every ballpark I have ever been to. I would also note that game information includes the game and related activities (according to the copyvio ticket above) and that images are specifically singled out in the text on the back.
IvoShandor 12:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
As an additional note, it is probably best to just pull this nom, there is noticeable artifacting in the image, it isn't really a great illustration of four seam fastball and it appears slightly out of focus, not to mention heavily tilted. I don't think this would ever pass FPC even if the licensing situation were resolved, because it basically appears to be a snapshot that anyone could take.
IvoShandor 12:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't know what artifacing is, however, it is the best action illustration of a four-seam fastball on WP. All better illustrations are posed, from what I have seen. I do not have a
WP:FPC trained eye and you may be right about some technical concerns. However, the instructive value of this image is illustrated by its prominent usage in a variety of baseball articles. When I look at the first sentence at
WP:FPC it reads "Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article." That is what this picture does. I think we should move to resume debate. --
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Go ahead, if others think that's a good idea, I don't generally comment at FPC for various reasons but I was just trying to save you some grief. These things are going to come up on the technical end of the photo at FPC right away. Artifacting is the result of the file compression used for JPEG files, depending on the camera, this can sometimes be addressed by using the super fine setting or whatever the camera's highest setting is, instead of normal, or whatever the default is. Since I couldn't care less about this featured picture contest thingy they have going here, I don't ever care to use the best setting, many of the images I have uploaded have visible artifacts at the highest resolution.
Technical aspects are important to a featured picture, just as important in most cases as encyclopedic value. My point about it not being the greatest illustration for a four seam fastball is still valid, you can't really make out what is going on with the pitcher's hand, definitely not at the size it would be viewed at in an article, sure blown up to its highest resolution it does but who does that?
IvoShandor 01:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
This debate has been at a halt forever, I suggest we re-run the photo through the FP process and get this over with - what do you guys think? --
84.90.46.116 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Why not? I removed the suspension notice.
MER-C 04:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)reply
A lengthy discussion on various contract issues regarding this photo (hidden by noinclude) has suggested that this photo is, indeed, OK for inclusion. Restarting candidacy.
MER-C 04:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Support With the copyright issues out of the way, this one's a no-brainer for me.
SingCal 17:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Support edit 1 Great detailed view of the delivery. CillaИ ♦ XC 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Detail on the fingers is excellent, relatively rare, and very illustrative.
Chick Bowen 18:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Appears tilted. The composition is really the biggest problem in my eyes. There is too little space in the direction of dynamic movement (in front of chris young, the direction he is throwing) I'm not sure if a portrait orientation is best for this picture. The pitching coach in the background is distracting. A tighter crop would be nice. Also, although this could be overlooked if the other aspects were addressed, I'd prefer to have the picture taken during the game. Maybe that prevents use b/c of copyright but it'd be nice. -
Fcb981(
talk:
contribs) 02:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Still oppose, the cropping helped but unfortunately the aspect ratio is too tall and skinny for this type of shot. I didn't suggest cropping or add my own edit because I thought (and still think) there isn't enough space on the left. Its a good shot by all means, I the composition just isn't there for my. -
Fcb981(
talk:
contribs) 19:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
You'd need a heck of a lens to get that much detail during the game. A bullpen shot is actually better for this purpose (showing the grip on the ball).
Chick Bowen 03:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I've added a low-res edit (Edit 2) with a tilt correction (based on the flagpole being vertical, but I may have gone just a little too far) and a crop (agree with Fcb981's comments re the composition, coach, etc, so have tried to fix this with the crop). This is for discussion only rather than voting. --
jjron 12:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The composition of Edit 2 is much better. It doesn't appear to me that you went to far in the tilt correction, but it's hard to tell. I would support a full-res version of edit 2. --
Malachirality 17:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I too would support full res of edit 2. And we need to have a caption too.
Jeff Dahl (
Talk •
contribs) 20:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I hesitated about running a full-res version of Edit2 as the original here has already been reduced a bit, so didn't know how it would handle it the crop and resave. I can have a try, but it would probably be better if TonyTheTiger did it off the real original. --
jjron 07:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Edit3 uploaded; I have removed the low-res Edit2 and replaced it with a full-res Edit3. Link to
Edit2 here.
Oppose I was just going to abstain here, but I've read over the original objections and I'm not really happy on a couple of points. The original image always seemed to me to be beyond redemption on composition, sharpness and enc grounds. I like jjron's edit but it's really only addressed one of those issues. I also don't understand how the copyright issue is suddenly "out of the way". Did I miss the part where permission was granted, or have we just decided to "publish and be damned"? All told, I can't help thinking it's a lot of struggle for a rather flawed image of doubtful legality, so I have to oppose. --
mikaultalk 17:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment glad to see debate resume. I am also grateful that this was cropped in a way that does not affect any of the linked articles. Since this was a 12:05 game the clock is important for
starting pitcher and the
bullpen is obviously important for bullpen. I would just remind you that this is the best unposed picture of a
Four seam fastball on WP. Bases on the first sentence at
WP:FPC ("Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article."), this is a great shot for its instructive value. I am not a photographer and appreciate all the editorial assistance in making corrections.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)reply
P.S. I don't know much about contrast and tint and such, but as a casual observer, I think the grass' green and the sky's blue looked better in edit 1.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Original & Edit 1, Weak Neutral Edit 3. Bad tilt and composition issues on opposed versions. Even with my edit that helps with these problems, I just can't really support Edit 3 on quality grounds. Re encyclopaedic value, I think it's best use is for the Chris Young article and probably 'pitcher' - a fair bit of discussion has gone on re the Four seam fastball value, but to me that's not that great as you can only see the fingers at full size (which not that many users do), and then it's all pretty fuzzy. So it does have value and is a fine image, but just not quite there for me. --
jjron 08:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (4)-edit3.jpgMER-C 03:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Four seam fastball delivery by
Chris Young during pregame
bullpen warmup.Edit 1 - adjusted levels so that it's less washed-out; downsampled to reduce artifacts; slight rotateEdit 3 by
jjron - tilt adjustment, crop, sharpen, colour balance, noise reduction (note: replaced low res Edit2 sample version with this)
Reason
This shot captures a
four-seam fastball with enough detail to see the seams on the baseball and the fingers during an action shot of a pitcher's delivery. It is rare level quality and detail on wikipedia to have such clarity of the seams and the fingers in an action shot of a top flight pitcher.
Chris Young is an interesting subject because he is an up and coming pitcher who is the first
Princeton University baseball player to start a
Major League Baseball game since 1961. Since
Wrigley Field is on the short list of favorite baseball stadiums (with
Yankee Stadium and
Fenway Park) the backdrop of the old fashioned scoreboard (note the scoreboard only has room for 24 teams even though baseball has expanded 3 times to 30 teams since the scoreboard was added) adds interesting context to the picture. Its old fashioned layout with open
bullpens in foul territory (instead of enclosed as is more common) allowed me and the viewer to look on along with the bullpen coach.
Comment — Are you sure that you have the rights to license this photo as CC? I've taken plenty of pictures in Fenway, but I'm not allowed to release them under any CC license without express permission from the Park (it's part of the agreement on the back side of the admission ticket). Sorry to be a downer, but I think that's why we don't have more baseball-related photos on WP. (I'm going to abstain on the vote, but I think it's a fantastic shot!)
tiZom(2¢) 00:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Reply I don't have express consent. However, I was in contact with the
Padres and
Cubs media relations offices all week before the game. I explained that I (not to diminish
User:Nishkid64's contribution) had written the
Chris Young page. They were unable to get me in with the media because WP is not recognized as a newsgathering entity. I have specifically spoken with the Cubs Director of Media relations and he knew I was coming. My last email from him was at 5:10 PM the day before Young's start. They get in around 7:30 AM for Saturday day games. I left him a message at 8:30 AM. Pregame sales of standing room starts at 9:00 AM. Although summer Saturday Wrigley games are sold out except for standing room, a single $500 market value seat in section 24 mysteriously was available when I got to the ticket window at about 9:05 for face value. After I purchased my ticket they announced standing room only. I am not sure if I could get express consent to release my photo on WP, but if I need to do so, I will check with them.
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)reply
tiZom, even if you are correct, I don't think it affects Wikipedia at all since it's already licensed CC (and he can't revoke that), since although Tim may be in breach of a service agreement it would be his issue.
grenグレン 01:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I respect your opinion, but I'd like to point out that this has already happened with
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eiffel tower nuit — a situation where French law prohibited photos of the Eiffel Tower at night to be licensed freely. We had a huge discussion about it, and it was not promoted because the image was not free. (It was subsequently deleted from the Commons for the same reason —
log).
I'd like to say that, yeah, it's the photographer's problem if it's licensed incorrectly. But that's part of our job too (hence
WP:PUI). If there's a glaring difference between the two cases here, then I will change my vote. But as it stands, I still think we should research the license further before continuing with this nomination.
tiZom(2¢) 03:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)reply
But, that is a law... not the EULA type thing of a corporation. You may be right, I don't really know. And, wow, that French law is stupid.
grenグレン 20:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I dont think the notice gives them any copyrights to your images. Unless they the got your signature on it, it really cant hold up in court.
Chris H 13:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
It's not a copyright issue that we're talking about here, but a matter of contract law. If the ticket stub has such a notice prohibiting commercial use of photos, it can be legally enforced as a contract, in which case he's not allowed to release the photos under the license he did. Now, one might argue that this is an issue solely between the Cubs organization and the photographer with WP as a third party. howcheng {
chat} 22:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Howcheng is correct here, and we have previously denied, delisted and deleted pictures that are crushed by silly local rules like this. Diliff's beautiful picture of the Notre-Dame de Montreal Basilica
was deleted because of the church's insane rule that photos taken with a tripod must be non-commercial, and thus cannot be freely licensed.
♠ SG→Talk 13:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)reply
debate has been suspended per below.
Yanksox 20:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I know it was suspended but in the U.S. I am pretty sure contracts cannot be enforced if the participants didn't have prior knowledge of what they were agreeing to. I don't know like a sign in a restaurant that says "Not responsible for lost or stolen articles." Yes they are, unless I misunderstood something.
IvoShandor 09:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Most likely, the ban on commercial photography is on the back of the ticket stub, which is enforceable as an
adhesion contract. The act of purchasing the ticket constitutes agreement to the contract (I know, it sounds pretty lame, but this has been accepted as a legal standard). howcheng {
chat} 18:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)reply
So the only way to circumvent this, would be to illegally sneak into the game, right? If you didn't purchase a ticket the contract becomes unenforceable I am guessing. Not that people should do that, because it is illegal but if I understand the contract correctly, then it would only be enforceable if you bought a ticket. While sneaking into the game would be a tort, taking pictures wouldn't become so just because of the fact that one is criminally trespassing. Just thought I would throw that out there.
IvoShandor 20:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)reply
"Holder agrees not to transmit or distribute any information about the game or related activities ('Game Information'); agrees Chicago Cubs is exclusive owner of all copyright in Game Information..." Is this not visual information? --
Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! -
<*> 22:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't think photos like this are "game information" in the ordinary sense of the words. It sounds to me like the contract is intended to get around the recent
Motorola decision, which deals with transmitting real-time scores. (See the link for a near-identical clause that the PGA ultimately used successfully to do just that.)
Calliopejen1 22:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Agree with
Calliopejen1. I don't think "game information" applies to photos like this; I would think it applies to the "accounts and descriptions of the game" itself. CillaИ ♦ XC 14:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I would disagree, my Red sox ticket stubs say: "Agree to transmit no game information, including but not limited to: Video, photos, written or recorded accounts/descriptions... blah blah." I think this is what the cubs are saying in two dozen fewer words. -
Fcb981(
talk:
contribs) 02:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. I am fairly certain that consent is unnecessary; "game information" does not by any logic I can think of imply pictures of players. On the other hand, the scan of that ticket is a clear copyvio--could you at least crop it to the relevant text?
Chick Bowen 02:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)reply
There was no sarcasm intended. I do believe consent is unnecessary and that we can feature this photograph; however, the design of the ticket is copyrighted.
Chick Bowen 03:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
??? I didn't read any sarcasm in that whatsoever.
In any case, the ticket I have to a Red Sox game here (which is the thing that started this whole mess) reads:
By use of this ticket, the ticket holder agrees that: (A) He or she shall not transmit or aid in transmitting any information about the game to which it grants permission, including, but not limited to, any account, description, picture, video, audio, reproduction or other information concerning the game (the "game information"); (B) The club issuing the ticket is the exclusive owner of all copyrights and other proprietary rights in the game and game information; and (C) [the right to show your likeness in broadcast]
I can't imagine that rules from park to park would be that different, and one wonders if picture, video, etc. is just assumed to be considered "Game Information".
tiZom(2¢) 12:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Which I just realized
Fcb981 said a few comments up. Sorry Eric!
tiZom(2¢) 12:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
No problem : ) you actually had the real wording while I paraphrased from memory. Somewhat on topic: Boston against Cleveland for the ALCS, do I smell a sweep? ;-) -
Fcb981(
talk:
contribs) 02:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
My guess is that items included in game information mean anything that happens inside the confine of the venue from the time the gates open to the time they close. Warm ups and batting practice would certainly be included in that. Of course, if you didn't purchase the ticket, you didn't really agree to the contract so...
IvoShandor 12:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The ticket for the Cubs is pretty much like every stub, from every ballpark I have ever been to. I would also note that game information includes the game and related activities (according to the copyvio ticket above) and that images are specifically singled out in the text on the back.
IvoShandor 12:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
As an additional note, it is probably best to just pull this nom, there is noticeable artifacting in the image, it isn't really a great illustration of four seam fastball and it appears slightly out of focus, not to mention heavily tilted. I don't think this would ever pass FPC even if the licensing situation were resolved, because it basically appears to be a snapshot that anyone could take.
IvoShandor 12:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't know what artifacing is, however, it is the best action illustration of a four-seam fastball on WP. All better illustrations are posed, from what I have seen. I do not have a
WP:FPC trained eye and you may be right about some technical concerns. However, the instructive value of this image is illustrated by its prominent usage in a variety of baseball articles. When I look at the first sentence at
WP:FPC it reads "Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article." That is what this picture does. I think we should move to resume debate. --
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Go ahead, if others think that's a good idea, I don't generally comment at FPC for various reasons but I was just trying to save you some grief. These things are going to come up on the technical end of the photo at FPC right away. Artifacting is the result of the file compression used for JPEG files, depending on the camera, this can sometimes be addressed by using the super fine setting or whatever the camera's highest setting is, instead of normal, or whatever the default is. Since I couldn't care less about this featured picture contest thingy they have going here, I don't ever care to use the best setting, many of the images I have uploaded have visible artifacts at the highest resolution.
Technical aspects are important to a featured picture, just as important in most cases as encyclopedic value. My point about it not being the greatest illustration for a four seam fastball is still valid, you can't really make out what is going on with the pitcher's hand, definitely not at the size it would be viewed at in an article, sure blown up to its highest resolution it does but who does that?
IvoShandor 01:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
This debate has been at a halt forever, I suggest we re-run the photo through the FP process and get this over with - what do you guys think? --
84.90.46.116 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Why not? I removed the suspension notice.
MER-C 04:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)reply
A lengthy discussion on various contract issues regarding this photo (hidden by noinclude) has suggested that this photo is, indeed, OK for inclusion. Restarting candidacy.
MER-C 04:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Support With the copyright issues out of the way, this one's a no-brainer for me.
SingCal 17:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Support edit 1 Great detailed view of the delivery. CillaИ ♦ XC 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Detail on the fingers is excellent, relatively rare, and very illustrative.
Chick Bowen 18:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Appears tilted. The composition is really the biggest problem in my eyes. There is too little space in the direction of dynamic movement (in front of chris young, the direction he is throwing) I'm not sure if a portrait orientation is best for this picture. The pitching coach in the background is distracting. A tighter crop would be nice. Also, although this could be overlooked if the other aspects were addressed, I'd prefer to have the picture taken during the game. Maybe that prevents use b/c of copyright but it'd be nice. -
Fcb981(
talk:
contribs) 02:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Still oppose, the cropping helped but unfortunately the aspect ratio is too tall and skinny for this type of shot. I didn't suggest cropping or add my own edit because I thought (and still think) there isn't enough space on the left. Its a good shot by all means, I the composition just isn't there for my. -
Fcb981(
talk:
contribs) 19:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
You'd need a heck of a lens to get that much detail during the game. A bullpen shot is actually better for this purpose (showing the grip on the ball).
Chick Bowen 03:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I've added a low-res edit (Edit 2) with a tilt correction (based on the flagpole being vertical, but I may have gone just a little too far) and a crop (agree with Fcb981's comments re the composition, coach, etc, so have tried to fix this with the crop). This is for discussion only rather than voting. --
jjron 12:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The composition of Edit 2 is much better. It doesn't appear to me that you went to far in the tilt correction, but it's hard to tell. I would support a full-res version of edit 2. --
Malachirality 17:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I too would support full res of edit 2. And we need to have a caption too.
Jeff Dahl (
Talk •
contribs) 20:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I hesitated about running a full-res version of Edit2 as the original here has already been reduced a bit, so didn't know how it would handle it the crop and resave. I can have a try, but it would probably be better if TonyTheTiger did it off the real original. --
jjron 07:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Edit3 uploaded; I have removed the low-res Edit2 and replaced it with a full-res Edit3. Link to
Edit2 here.
Oppose I was just going to abstain here, but I've read over the original objections and I'm not really happy on a couple of points. The original image always seemed to me to be beyond redemption on composition, sharpness and enc grounds. I like jjron's edit but it's really only addressed one of those issues. I also don't understand how the copyright issue is suddenly "out of the way". Did I miss the part where permission was granted, or have we just decided to "publish and be damned"? All told, I can't help thinking it's a lot of struggle for a rather flawed image of doubtful legality, so I have to oppose. --
mikaultalk 17:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment glad to see debate resume. I am also grateful that this was cropped in a way that does not affect any of the linked articles. Since this was a 12:05 game the clock is important for
starting pitcher and the
bullpen is obviously important for bullpen. I would just remind you that this is the best unposed picture of a
Four seam fastball on WP. Bases on the first sentence at
WP:FPC ("Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article."), this is a great shot for its instructive value. I am not a photographer and appreciate all the editorial assistance in making corrections.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)reply
P.S. I don't know much about contrast and tint and such, but as a casual observer, I think the grass' green and the sky's blue looked better in edit 1.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Original & Edit 1, Weak Neutral Edit 3. Bad tilt and composition issues on opposed versions. Even with my edit that helps with these problems, I just can't really support Edit 3 on quality grounds. Re encyclopaedic value, I think it's best use is for the Chris Young article and probably 'pitcher' - a fair bit of discussion has gone on re the Four seam fastball value, but to me that's not that great as you can only see the fingers at full size (which not that many users do), and then it's all pretty fuzzy. So it does have value and is a fine image, but just not quite there for me. --
jjron 08:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (4)-edit3.jpgMER-C 03:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)reply
.JPG&action=edit§ion=1){kind=link}
.JPG)
-edit3.jpg)
_-_temp.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&oldid=1048833463){kind=link}