Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Angel glacier and a rock rabbit enjoying the view. (50891599841).jpg

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

File:Angel glacier and a rock rabbit enjoying the view. (50891599841).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2022 at 09:17:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • But someone can vote without reading the discussion. If I like a photo, I don't care what others have said. You do need to flag it in the info section of the nom. It would be better to change the file name. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment not sure why you withdrew it, I was about to support for what it is : a good example of photoshop montage (and despite some shortcomings). No one is deceiving anyone here, and a reviewer feels let down, it's only his fault for not reading the description. Benh (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I’m with Benh here. Most Wikimedians (including myself) have a strong devotion on documentary and ‘authentic’ photography; but photomontages are everywhere today (one could even argue that the way smartphones process photos today, taking several shots and rendering a single one from them without any manual control, improving many details by ‘AI’, always results in a kind of uncontrolled photomontage). Therefore even if we see the main focus of Commons in documentary and educative media, we still need also photomontages and need a discourse about them; and having a discourse about photomotages would mean for Commons that we to sort photomontages in special categories (in addition to the topical categories), that we introduce QI and FP (and maybe VI?) criteria for photomontages and apply them. When we stop to decline photomotages per se and instead start to distinguish between (technically) better and worse photomotages, between helpful and malicious photomotages, between photomotages made for political vs. educative vs. … reasons or just for fun, then we will help to enlighten people about the various forms and intentions of photomotages, how to recognize them etc.
    What does this mean concretely? Let’s discuss a photo like this one as a photomontage and vote on it on the base of questions like: (i) whether the montage is technically done well or not; (ii) whether the montage was successful or not, i.e. whether it creates some additional wow/fun/eureka effect or not; (iii) whether we can agree that the montage has a ‘good’, i.e. educative or entertaining effect, or does mislead in a dishonest intention. And if we would get the necessary majority of support votes, let’s put the picture into a new gallery page, i.e. not into Places/Natural/Canada, but on a new ‘Photomontages’ gallery page, to make clear that we feature the picture not in spite of it being a photomontage, but exactly as a photomontage.
    Sorry for the rant ;–). We can continue this on the talk page, if you want. (But I have already said what I wanted to say, so I will shut up.) --Aristeas (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support it's a pretty good, dramatic and fun photo montage. The rabbit is so well blended, even its "ambient light" seems to be from the surrounding. There's even a pretty good cast shadow. Only caveats are some edges (moustache and herbs in the mouth) are noticeable, but no deal breaker in my view. - Benh (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Aristeas and Benh. Many thanks for Aristeas whose clear and far-sighted statement makes further explanations superfluous, imo. -- Radomianin (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose no vegetation nearby that rabbit has in mouth. --Ivar (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Tinker pictures that way does not fascinate me at all, sorry. I had a similar composition featured 3 years ago, fortunately not a fake. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per others.--Ermell (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The fact that the pika is eating vegetation nowhere in evidence in the picture makes this too hard to believe for it to be a good mashup. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak support Thank you for giving the picture another chance! Well, evaluating this photomontage roughly according to the ideas stated above leads me to the following result: The original photo of the Angel glacier is good, impressive and more or less on FP level. The photomontage was done well (see Benh’s statement); I see no dishonest intention, but it’s a fun photo montage and one could even say it has got some educational value (it’s an instructive example and would fit nicely into a schoolbook ;–). But personally I think the photomontage does not add much value to the original photo – it’s nice, but not great. Therefore my result is weak support. --Aristeas (talk) 06:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per others Ryan Hodnett (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Ikan, and also because the lighting just doesn't work for such a splendid scene. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I find this picture beautiful in a number of ways but the central concept is something of a gimmick to me. Cmao20 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 11 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Angel_glacier_and_a_rock_rabbit_enjoying_the_view._(50891599841).jpg&oldid=671921448"