Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:128 Balconies of 1390 Market Street, San Francisco.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:128 Balconies of 1390 Market Street, San Francisco.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 07:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Apartments of 1390 Market Street, San Francisco
  •  Oppose I see this as an unwarranted Peeping Tom intrusion into people's private property and surely must be against Wikipedia guidelines on privacy, especially since the address is given. We should not be promoting voyeur pictures. Charles (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO It's inevitable, with the time, cameras censors are larger and photographs became very detailed. At some point it will be possible to observe the whole interior of any building. --The Photographer 11:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course intrusions become easier, and with increased detail comes new responsibilities. Why should we encourage this type of intrusion. If this was your flat would you want a community like Commons promoting an image of who is in your flat, what they are doing and what goodies you might have waiting to be stolen? Not me. Charles (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Ambivalent While this is a good photo, I too get an uneasy feeling about this one. I have no problem with office buildings and I have supported a photo like this before (but commented that I felt like a perv peeping in on people's private life) where you could see people's living rooms and not many people, but this strikes me as having mostly the bedrooms facing this view and it is much, much more detailed and that feels like a step too far. If I'm at home relaxing in my bed, I would not want a photo of that as an FP. --cart-Talk 11:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's a valid point, and I'll think about it, but all but one person seems questionably recognizable unless you already know them, and the most recognizable person is on his porch at the lowest floor depicted. I don't like the "it's inevitable" argument, though. Is this an unwarranted and objectionable invasion of privacy? Let's have a discussion about that. I just might withdraw this nomination if there's enough objection or the arguments really convince me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination - To everyone who supported this photo, I'm sorry. I think the critics are right. If anyone wants to take over this nomination, feel free, but in that case, I think I must abstain, as I've concluded that my appreciation for this photograph as a work of art is a bit callous toward people with expectations of at least a greater degree of privacy within their own homes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominate this picture, however, I understand this point for pictures where "A private place is somewhere the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy"[1] , however, it's a very subjetive factor in this particular case --The Photographer 13:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for nominating this picture! I was a bit hesitant to upload it (even though it was taken two months ago) because of privacy concerns also, but my photography friends assured me it was okay. This was taken with a 50mm lens on full frame, and I think it should be fine. There is little reasonable expectation of privacy at a large window facing a busy city, especially when viewed by a lens whose field of view is similar to that of the human eye. But to focus on an individual one of these with a 300mm lens, or to crop the picture, however, may be a breach of privacy (though that sort of project has been attempted before, with great controversy: [2]). In any case, like Ikan, I was also drawn by the geometry of the somewhat brutalist building contrasting against the randomness of the windows, and indeed, I was inspired by Featured works by The Photographer. dllu (t,c) 17:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s in public view and you’re on public property, then you’re allowed to take a picture of it and upload it in commons because it's legal in your country. There are permutations. If you’re standing on a public sidewalk and you’re taking a picture with a 50-millimeter lens, and it’s a wide shot of the city street, that’s fine. If you now put on an 800-millimeter lens and take a picture through somebody’s window, you’ve now invaded their privacy and that could be a civil tort, however, it's only a subjective moral issue and not a legal rule. --The Photographer 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 50mm lens is considered a normal lens. It is a common adage to say that a normal lens has a similar field of view as the human eye (though in actuality the human eye's field of view is very wide but blurry outside of the fovea region). dllu (t,c) 04:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the buildings are fairly close. Here's a screenshot from Google Maps: [3]. Here's the approx field of view superimposed on Google maps: [4]. The two red lines are 40 degrees apart. The horizontal field of view of a 50mm lens is around 39 degrees, as per an online calculator [5]. There was a small amount of cropping in this photo. dllu (t,c) 12:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't know the rules or legislation of the area of the picture--Lmbuga (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Minor cyan CAs--Lmbuga (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment (poor English) Sorry, this photo is IMO one of the best photos I have seen lately. If there is something personal or personal in the photo, it is not the purpose of presenting it. The photo does not care (it does not focus) for presenting any details. The important thing is the global vision.

It can not be considered intrusive when names and surnames are not used. Who is there recognizable?

You do not see it, but we're talking about freedom of expression. We speak of the freedom of expression of journalists; Of the right to information.--Lmbuga (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment very nice picture. Tus hijos de cinco años pueden saber lo que hacen sus amigos y ganarles millones de dólares en la bolsa" Que cabrones soir todos!!!

I want to continue with the nomination of this photo. Now I'm the nominator. Thanks.--Lmbuga (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas, your addition seems incorrect to me. Shouldn't all the votes from when I was still nominating this photo count? I think everyone assumed they would. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek, I see what you mean. I edited my lengthy reply here and made a new FPC talk discussion about it, to clarify the rules for the future. – LucasT 16:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=8|oppose=1|neutral=1|featured=yes|category=Places/Architecture|sig=– [[User:Lucasbosch|Lucas]][[User_talk:Lucasbosch|<font color="black"><sup>T</sup></font>]] 08:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)}}

EoRdE6's vote was not in any of the two voting periods so I excluded him from the count, Lmbuga's vote was between active voting windows, I included the vote anyway.– LucasT 08:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the previous FPC-results-ready-to-review so that the FPCBot can act on the reviewed one– LucasT 08:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:128_Balconies_of_1390_Market_Street,_San_Francisco.jpg&oldid=235818652"