United States Quarter
A rather well detailed image of a standard US Quarter as seen from the "heads" side. The image appears in the article Quarter (United States coin). I am nominating this image for its excellent detail.
- Nominate and support. TomStar81 21:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support, it's as good as the other US Mint photos that are already featured. — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-08-24 21:51
- Support, Nice detail, even the artist mark is very clear. HighInBC 22:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Just a good overall image; about the same quality as the featured penny image. -- Tewy 01:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support, nice. Cat-five - talk 07:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not special coin, not special photo. In principle, this coin has few details to be interesting.
Olegivvit 11:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- So would you delist the current featured pictures that are US Mint photos? This picture illustrates the subject excellently--the very definition of what a featured picture should be. Are you suggesting that
Quarter (United States coin) is part of a special subset of articles that are undeserving of featured pictures, because the subject itself is "not special"? —
BRIAN
0918 • 2006-08-25 15:40
- I would delist. Why this photo should be featured but not, for example, many of these [1]?
- I think this is an invalid oppose; FPC guidelines state "Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed", and this one does not.
TomStar81 19:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note the first two word is that quote.
say1988 02:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am aware of that. For me, if you can not give a specific reason for opposing that can be adressed I think to be either a boring picture, or something someone just does not like about the picture. In either case, I believe that to be beyond my ability (or anyone elses, for that matter) to fix or improve. I am not saying that the people who dislike the photo can not vote oppose unless they have a valid reason, I am just saying that it seems a little hard to count a vote that states something that can not be addressed.
TomStar81 03:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Some pictures just plainly aren't good enough and can't be improved. Hence the "Where possible" You get an image from NASA that has part cut off, you obviously can't fix that, so oppose votes for being cut off shouldn't count much in that case? say1988 02:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am aware of that. For me, if you can not give a specific reason for opposing that can be adressed I think to be either a boring picture, or something someone just does not like about the picture. In either case, I believe that to be beyond my ability (or anyone elses, for that matter) to fix or improve. I am not saying that the people who dislike the photo can not vote oppose unless they have a valid reason, I am just saying that it seems a little hard to count a vote that states something that can not be addressed.
TomStar81 03:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note the first two word is that quote.
say1988 02:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- So would you delist the current featured pictures that are US Mint photos? This picture illustrates the subject excellently--the very definition of what a featured picture should be. Are you suggesting that
Quarter (United States coin) is part of a special subset of articles that are undeserving of featured pictures, because the subject itself is "not special"? —
BRIAN
0918 • 2006-08-25 15:40
- Support Beautifully photographed, I love it! - Adrian Pingstone 16:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Encyclopedic, high resolution, good image quality. -- Pharaoh Hound (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Personally, I don't think any of these kinds of coin shots should be featured, primarily because they're product shots produced as advertising for the sale of proof sets and the like by the U.S. mint. Also, they don't appear to be legitimate photographs -- every single one has the same yin-yang-shaped highlight/shadow section that doesn't correspond to any kind of lighting I could imagine (or to the shape of a coin). At best they started as photographs, but are so artificial-looking in their final forms as to be best described as illustrations. Now that alone doesn't mean they aren't feature-worthy, but to me it means that since every coin the mint produces ends up with a similar illustration, we're going to end up with dozens and dozens of product shot featured images simply because each nomination couldn't be said to be worse than the last coin image nomination. -- Moondigger 22:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm I bet you could make that lighting effect with a flexible piece of reflectic
mylar.
HighInBC 00:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Give it a try and post the results. ;^) Seriously, there's no way you're going to get a border between shadow and highlight with that even, gradient-tool transition. And even ignoring the border, the lettering isn't going to magically form neat black outlines in the highlight area to set it off from the background. The more I've studied this image the more I doubt it ever was a photograph at all. --
Moondigger 00:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Skim through these Google images (or [2] or [3]) and you'll find some photos exhibiting this effect, such as [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. There are also examples on eBay, such as [14]. Most coins aren't proof with deep cameo. This illustration depicts such a coin. You should be more careful before influencing so many other voters in the future. — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-08-29 04:37Z
- Give it a try and post the results. ;^) Seriously, there's no way you're going to get a border between shadow and highlight with that even, gradient-tool transition. And even ignoring the border, the lettering isn't going to magically form neat black outlines in the highlight area to set it off from the background. The more I've studied this image the more I doubt it ever was a photograph at all. --
Moondigger 00:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
-
Support I find no problem what so ever with product shots - they're the most encyclopeadic images possible. And I actually like "yin-yang" lighting - I always wondered how they did that and I am slightly envious I can't do it. Makes it look really shiny in a bizarre way. Good image --
Fir0002 12:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure they do it with the paint bucket and gradient tools in Photoshop. That's what I mean when I say they're not really photographs. -- Moondigger 13:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support Very well photographed, high resolution, and deserving of featured status. Hello32020 12:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Shiny support - Shame that there are no shiny coins like that on American streets. Iola k ana• T 13:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per moondigger -- Vircabutar 16:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Moondiger, it looks artificial. What's so special about this pic again? Nnfolz 22:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Moondiger. No different than the dozens of other US Mint product shots. Nothing special, not a FP. Chicago god 01:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Moondiger. I think he is right that it has been manipulated - on the upper right part of the head, in the black part of the field are edge highlights that look like sloppy masking in clearing out the background to make it black, same along some of the letters, none of which have black components as dark as the yin-yang. Debivort 02:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per Moondigger -- mcshadypl Talk Cont 03:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral I've got to agree that the lighting looks highly artificial (that was the first thing I thought when looking at it; the lighting is too perfect) and thus smacks of photo manipulation, but I don't think that in particular should prevent the image's promotion. However, I don't think it's particularly interesting, just high quality. --
uberpenguin
@ 2006-08-27 03:35Z - Oppose Per Moondiger and Chicago god. Chris Quackenbush 22:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support I think people are getting too hung up on aesthetics and are forgetting the fundamental purpose of FPs, which is to illustrate the subject. This is aesthetically pleasing enough to qualify as a FP because it is such a valuable, demonstrative illustration.
Dylan 23:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think a better illustration of a quarter would be an actual photograph of one. I don't believe this is a photograph; it could have been put together in Illustrator and Photoshop without even starting with an actual coin. I'd prefer something like the Anthony dollar image we have here, posted above for comparison. -- Moondigger 00:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Per
Moondigger and
Debivort. I also think that if the image was manipulated, the author (if present) or the nomitor (if he has knowledge of this) should release the information. --
Chaos Reaver 05:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Let me be clear -- I don't think the manipulation itself is reason enough to oppose; the U.S. Mint web site doesn't even claim they're photographs. (They're product illustrations that many will assume are photographs.) My opposition is because I think a better (more accurate, more encyclopedic) illustration of a coin would be an actual photograph of a coin. -- Moondigger 14:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. per Moondigger. I would also be in favor of an actual photo of the currency. This illustration just looks way too fake, especially when you compare it with the photo of the Susan B. Anthony coin. --
Nebular110 15:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- But the shading effect is not fake, whether or not you think it looks fake. See my reply to Moondigger's vote. The Susan B. Anthony coin is not a cameo coin, so of course it wouldn't show this effect. —
BRIAN
0918 • 2006-08-29 13:39Z
- There are cameo Susan B. Anthony coins, though obviously this one isn't one. There are also cameo quarters, but the vast majority of quarters are not cameos.
- The U.S. Mint images were designed to look like the cameo images you linked to, but the blacks are too perfectly black, the highlights are too perfectly smooth, and the border is too perfectly graded, clearly done with a gradient tool in a graphics program. The letters in the highlight areas of the photos you linked to aren't all perfectly outlined in black to set them off from the light background -- sometimes they're imperfect because of the way the light source hits them. Here's one of the images you linked to for comparison: [15].
- I'm a bit confused by your objections to my comments anyway. You admit the U.S. Mint images are "drawings, not photographs," which is what I said. That they are thought to be photographs by casual viewers is a big part of my objection. I believe a photograph makes for a better, more encyclopedic depiction of a given object than a drawing of that object does.
- As for my "influence" on others' votes -- I voted and gave my reasons for voting the way I did. You voted and gave your reasons for voting the way you did. How is what I did any more objectionable than what you did? --
Moondigger 14:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I only objected to your claims that manipulations were necessary to create the yin-yang effect, and those incorrect claims influenced later voters. Specifically, you said, "every single one has the same yin-yang-shaped highlight/shadow section that doesn't correspond to any kind of lighting I could imagine (or to the shape of a coin)." —
BRIAN
0918 • 2006-08-31 18:40Z
- No, as I explained below, I mentioned the yin/yang shadow/highlights as evidence that the image isn't a photograph, which (contrary to your objection) is absolutely correct. I elaborated shortly thereafter, mentioning the gradient-tool border between shadow and highlight, the pure blackness of the shadow, etc. None of that corresponds to any kind of lighting used in product photography, and is indicative of either a drawing that never began as a photograph or a heavily (and unrealistically) manipulated photograph. If the way I phrased the comment caused confusion or misunderstanding about what I meant, then I encourage those who may have been influenced by my comment to reconsider their votes. -- Moondigger 00:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I only objected to your claims that manipulations were necessary to create the yin-yang effect, and those incorrect claims influenced later voters. Specifically, you said, "every single one has the same yin-yang-shaped highlight/shadow section that doesn't correspond to any kind of lighting I could imagine (or to the shape of a coin)." —
BRIAN
0918 • 2006-08-31 18:40Z
- But the shading effect is not fake, whether or not you think it looks fake. See my reply to Moondigger's vote. The Susan B. Anthony coin is not a cameo coin, so of course it wouldn't show this effect. —
BRIAN
0918 • 2006-08-29 13:39Z
- Another comment with respect to the feature-worthiness of this particular image. It's being used to illustrate the articles
Quarter (United States coin),
Gallery of coins and
Gallery of circulating Western hemisphere coins. Since it's clearly a drawing of a cameo coin, as you point out, it's entirely inappropriate for a gallery of circulating coins. It's also not a terribly good choice for the Quarter article since the vast majority of quarters people are likely to come across aren't cameos or proof-quality. All IMO, of course. --
Moondigger 14:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Reading back through the discussion above, I think I understand your objection now. I mentioned in my Oppose vote paragraph that the yin/yang shaped shadow/highlight sections didn't correspond to any lighting scheme I could imagine. You're pointing out that dark/light sections are common in photos of cameo coins, and that therefore such lighting isn't 'fake.' I get it, and you're right -- it's not 'fake' from that POV. But my comment was only meant as evidence that the image was not a photograph; I focused (excuse the pun) on how the border between shadow and highlight was clearly done with the gradient tool, and how perfectly black the shadow section was, etc. My point is that this image is almost certainly not a photograph, though it might appear to be one by casual inspection.
- The truth is that I have a coin collection, including several proof sets and cameos, and I get the U.S. Mint brochures/catalogs in the mail all the time. The illustrations in those catalogs are the same as used on the web site, and I believe they are poor representations of the actual coins. I would prefer legitimate photographs, and find such photographs more feature-worthy even if they don't have perfectly smooth borders between shadow and highlight, etc.
- If anybody's vote was swayed by a misunderstanding of my comments, I encourage them to reassess their votes and change them if necessary. I didn't mean to imply that such shadow/highlight areas were impossible in a photograph -- only that the nature of the shadow/highlight areas in this particular illustration are indicative that it's a drawing rather than a photograph. --
Moondigger 15:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- To adress Brian0918 - while the images you link to as examples show high-contrast fields, they are clearly photographs as evidenced by the noise in the fields. The black parts of this image have absolutely no variability - their RGB value is #000000. To get this from a camera is essentially impossible over a large field because of instrument noise. Should it be considered as an illustration? Perhaps, but I say no because it looks like a photo, people will view it as one, and walk away thinking coins could actually be as shiny as the one portrayed here, which they cannot. Therefore it deceptively illustrates the very topic it is supposed to portray. Reiterate my opposition. I might be more sympathetic if it had been created by a wikipedian rather than a governmental marketing department.
Debivort 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it's an illustration. I only objected to Moondigger's claim that, "every single one has the same yin-yang-shaped highlight/shadow section that doesn't correspond to any kind of lighting I could imagine (or to the shape of a coin)." —
BRIAN
0918 • 2006-08-31 18:46Z
- A statement which remains true despite your objection. See my comment above, beginning "No, as I explained below..." -- Moondigger 00:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it's an illustration. I only objected to Moondigger's claim that, "every single one has the same yin-yang-shaped highlight/shadow section that doesn't correspond to any kind of lighting I could imagine (or to the shape of a coin)." —
BRIAN
0918 • 2006-08-31 18:46Z
- To adress Brian0918 - while the images you link to as examples show high-contrast fields, they are clearly photographs as evidenced by the noise in the fields. The black parts of this image have absolutely no variability - their RGB value is #000000. To get this from a camera is essentially impossible over a large field because of instrument noise. Should it be considered as an illustration? Perhaps, but I say no because it looks like a photo, people will view it as one, and walk away thinking coins could actually be as shiny as the one portrayed here, which they cannot. Therefore it deceptively illustrates the very topic it is supposed to portray. Reiterate my opposition. I might be more sympathetic if it had been created by a wikipedian rather than a governmental marketing department.
Debivort 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support This picture is very clear and the shading/shadowing is very appealing. It is also a significant coin to the United States. --midnight_rider 01:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
![[5]](http://www2.icollector.com/showcase/graphics/sale_402_4.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://www.nwcoin.com/catalog/images/Canada%201960%20Silver%20Dollar%20MS67Cameo%20obv.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](http://i4.ebayimg.com/01/i/02/25/7b/18_1.JPG){kind=link}
![[11]](http://www.cruzis-coins.com/silverdollars/1993om.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/news_images/8842_24539_4.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:XIxokLlh6idkWM:http://www.bidorbuy.co.za/images/thumbnail/264/397264-1721743701-b.gif){kind=link}
![[14]](http://i15.ebayimg.com/04/i/06/ac/78/a2_1_b.JPG){kind=link}
Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)