Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2017.01.20.-83-Paradiski-La Plagne-Roche de Mio--Mont Blanc.jpg

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

File:2017.01.20.-83-Paradiski-La Plagne-Roche de Mio--Mont Blanc.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2017 at 11:19:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mont Blanc. Taken in La Plagne on the Roche De Mio.
 Comment I judge your vote as a revenge because of my deletion request. --Hockei (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nö, das ist wegen dem Grauschleier. Und dazu braucht man nichtmal einen kalibrierten Monitor, das ist im Histogramm deutlich erkennbar. Die Bearbeitung von Yann ist schon deutlich klarer aber wie bereits geschrieben müßte das am RAW gemacht werden. Ich würde es so vorschlagen aber ohne Rohdaten wird das Murks. --Ralf Roleček 13:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Why doubt? --Hockei (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looked too clear! Charles (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the fact that the pinky version is taken back your current oppose reason due to the color seems not quite honest to me. --Hockei (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hockei: But still oppose per others. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should reload your browser after opening the file. That Colin said it has a poor composition I cannot read out of his text. For possible hidden bad phrases my English isn't good enough, has it? --Hockei (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hockei: It was inferred by "arbitrary crop" (willkürliche Ernte. I hope that noun is the right one ...) Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explanation. I translate this in willkürlicher Schnitt (Bildschnitt or Bildausschnitt). Willkürlich isn't the same like schlecht or armselig (poor). More like not well selected rather randomly. But it's not important. --Hockei (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I uploaded a new version with a bit changed white balance and some more pixels (7.7 MP) but not full resolution (max at GH5 12 MP in 16:9). This deletion request opened my eyes about wikimedia and some users restless. Some users do so as if the cc by-sa is like public domain. Photographers are just sucked out and then on the top of it they get a kick. I don't want to pull him in here but I totally agree with Pocos reasons. I decided I won't upload full resolution pictures no more even if the GH3 pictures only have max 12 or 16 MP (4:3). But my GH3 era is over in April 2017 and then comes my GH5 era. I'm not sure if I'll upload pictures from this camera to the wikimedia yet. It doesn't matter whether Colin or other users like it or not. Fact is that the pictures of Moroder almost all are too soft. Independently of the number of pixels. But he isn't willing to change his way so I have the right to say that. This isn't cheeky how colin said but just honest and true.
I won't withdraw the nomination of my picture but want your decision.
In spite of all I have to say thanks to all users they helped me to develop my skills in producing pictures from the raw photo (at last to Yann).
@Yann: I beg you to delete the copies of this picture because they are not needed no more. I hope it's possible in that short way. --Hockei (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that Moroder's pictures have a consistent problem with softness, the point remains that at 6MP your image and his image are comparable in sharpness. Yet you nominate yours downsampled to < 6MP and expect us to go wow -- which is the criteria for FP. If Moroder did the same, he'd get fewer complaints about softness also, but also more complaints about unimpressive detail/size. Neither then are "among our finest" technically. We are left then with whether the image is among our finest artistically, and here Jebulon sums things up -- this is nice but nothing special. As for the DR, well Jim does not represent the whole of Commons nor Wikimedia, and he could have handled that better, but he was technically correct. If you use CC BY-SA then you can't be overly precise about attribution placement. Several people spent considerable time helping you draft a better wording, which I think better represents Commons community than some clumsy admin. I don't see how downsizing to 6MP will make a bean of difference to whether your images are stolen on the internet, as many Web usages require much smaller than that, and 6MP is sufficient to print A4 professionally. This kind of downsizing because you don't want to be more generous, will not impress anyone at Commons FPC and is exactly the sort of downsizing that is discouraged. Especially so when we see you complaining about 36MP images being too soft. That's just not fair play. In my opinion, if you are a professional photographer then by all means keep them "All rights reserved" as it protects your assets from which you derive your income and pay the mortgage. But if this is a hobby then who are you helping by worrying about someone in China or USA stealing your photo? It only gives you an ulcer and you will be no richer if you keep them under copyright on some Flickr album instead. -- Colin (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin: While I agree that this is not very sharp, you can't compare a picture taken from 39 km away, and one taken only from a few kilometers. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, I'm not aware there is a need to take the picture from 39km away, so that doesn't really help the case. The latest upload has turned the sky purple, so I don't know what is going on. The "finest on Commons" doesn't include pictures deliberately downsized so that Commons is a loser. If we all played that game, we'd all be judging 2MP images. -- Colin (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin: I have withdrawn my vote, as the colors are wrong now. But why do you talk about a need? A picture is taken from a given place, that's all. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I take a picture of Big Ben from a poor or distant vantage point, then people may complain it isn't sharp, or the verticals perspective distortion is too much. But if I get a great location, that can make all the difference. That this image is ok from that distance is great, but doesn't itself justify FP. Thinking about it, Yann, I think the reason this image isn't popping out of the screen with wow is exactly because it was taken from so far away. The perspective compression that results creates a flat image almost like someone painted this mountain on a piece of card. We expect our mountains to be 3D. -- Colin (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose For me, nothing different nor better than the ton of pictures of mountains we already have...--Jebulon (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jebulon: Just an advice. Click on the reload button in your browser after you opened the file then you'll see the difference. If not you maybe have more colour blindness than me. --Hockei (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hockei: . Advices are always good, thank you. Again, this is just (for me) another (very good, even not that sharp...) pictures of mountains, as we have already tons in our FP collection.--Jebulon (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:2017.01.20.-83-Paradiski-La_Plagne-Roche_de_Mio--Mont_Blanc.jpg&oldid=259284960"