Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ansamblul bisericii evanghelice fortificate din Archita MS-II-a-A-15596.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Ansamblul bisericii evanghelice fortificate din Archita MS-II-a-A-15596.JPG, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2015 at 23:59:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Silvia Nichita - uploaded by Silvia Nichita - nominated by Mihai -- Mihai (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Support Well rounded picture which was uploaded in context of the Romanian version of WLM 2015. It has no legal problems (FOP and personality rights not violated), it has great artistic value (the photographer was lucky that the herd passed by at that moment in the foreground, bestowing dynamic value to an already great setting, while not overshadowing the background) and it's also good from the technical standpoint (sharp, focused, undistorted, nice colours etc.). It's also shot with a non-DSLR camera, which sends out the nice message that gear isn't everything.-- Mihai (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ha!, the Sony DSC-RX100 II costs as much as an entry-level DSLR + standard zoom lens. It's a little beauty, combining Sony's sensor genius with Zeiss optical genius. I want one, but Santa doesn't seem to be getting the letters I write to him every Christmas. -- Colin (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Colin, I'll write to Santa on your behalft. :P--Mihai (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ha!, the Sony DSC-RX100 II costs as much as an entry-level DSLR + standard zoom lens. It's a little beauty, combining Sony's sensor genius with Zeiss optical genius. I want one, but Santa doesn't seem to be getting the letters I write to him every Christmas. -- Colin (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment It's a good photo and well-caught scene, and I'm close to support. The camera is tilted up a bit, which means the verticals aren't straight. I'm not at my PC so can't experiment with perspective correction -- sometimes that distorts things too much. -- Colin (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)- Comment Needs a perspective correction IMO. The building on the left seems to lean backwards and the tower on the right is leaning to the left. It's also quite small for a 20 MPix camera. Compositionally very nice, however. --Code (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Conditional support If perspective correction done. Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support but per Daniel. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support per Daniel also. --Tremonist (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support if the photo is not going to be tinkered with (aka perspective correction) -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Shadows are to dark, perspective problems. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)- Comment I have done a moderate perspective correction and also removed a dust spot I'd missed, near the left upper corner. --Mihai (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Mihai, I hope you asked Silvia Nichita for permission to edit his photo -- this is a WLM nomination. Your edit looks ok, though. -- Colin (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is no need to ask the photographer for permission, the images is freely licensed. As a jury member in WLMRO, we don't have any issue with the image being edited, we are already past it's evaluation stage.--Nicubunu (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Mihai, I hope you asked Silvia Nichita for permission to edit his photo -- this is a WLM nomination. Your edit looks ok, though. -- Colin (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Nicubunu: Though the edit seems ok and I personnaly see no issue here, the licence allow you to upload a different file with a modified version but don't allow you to overwrite indefinitely the image with a new version. See : Commons:Overwriting existing files. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say this falls under Minor improvements: minor and uncontroversial color correction, noise reduction, perspective correction etc., which are allowed. --Mihai (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nicubunu, you are wrong. The licence says nothing about overwriting files on Commons, which is the issue here, vs someone uploading an alternative that is not in the competition. You may feel you don't have an issue, but consider if the image wins a prize and someone else complains that this image was given an unfair advantage -- that someone other than the photographer manipulated the image to an advantage (or disadvantage) and possibly after the deadline for submissions. When running a competition (and I was involved in WLM UK) you have to be seen to be completely fair, more than just feel you are fair in yourself. For myself, if someone else had fiddled with one of my WLM images during the review process, I'd have had very harsh words for them. We have no shortage of filenames and there is no rush to submit to FP. Mihai, the guideline says "it is strongly recommended that users wishing to make improvements to photographs first contact the creator, whether on Commons or elsewhere." I can't put it any more simply than that. It is the polite and respectful thing to do. -- Colin (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Colin, let's not forget the scope of this discussion: it's not about whether minor improvements to a photo are a disadvantage to other contestants in WLM, which is a totally different issue, but whether this image is good enough for the featured picture status at Commons. Had you expressed these objections from the start (I've mentioned WLM from the start), instead of requesting improvements, I would have postponed the nomination. --Mihai (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Colin, the image was already evaluated by the WLMRO jury in its original form.--Nicubunu (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nicubunu, you are wrong. The licence says nothing about overwriting files on Commons, which is the issue here, vs someone uploading an alternative that is not in the competition. You may feel you don't have an issue, but consider if the image wins a prize and someone else complains that this image was given an unfair advantage -- that someone other than the photographer manipulated the image to an advantage (or disadvantage) and possibly after the deadline for submissions. When running a competition (and I was involved in WLM UK) you have to be seen to be completely fair, more than just feel you are fair in yourself. For myself, if someone else had fiddled with one of my WLM images during the review process, I'd have had very harsh words for them. We have no shortage of filenames and there is no rush to submit to FP. Mihai, the guideline says "it is strongly recommended that users wishing to make improvements to photographs first contact the creator, whether on Commons or elsewhere." I can't put it any more simply than that. It is the polite and respectful thing to do. -- Colin (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say this falls under Minor improvements: minor and uncontroversial color correction, noise reduction, perspective correction etc., which are allowed. --Mihai (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Nicubunu: Though the edit seems ok and I personnaly see no issue here, the licence allow you to upload a different file with a modified version but don't allow you to overwrite indefinitely the image with a new version. See : Commons:Overwriting existing files. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support Its a bit oversaturated and contrast too high, not big in size. But Romania is not seen often here and subject is nice. True Romania, more Valachia. --Mile (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support might have opposed if it weren't for the sheep. Thanks @Mihai for going easy on the perspective correction instead of forcing straight verticals, which could have killed the image for me. --El Grafo (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Isasza (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support The persp. cor. as it was done is very good IMO, and adds to the picture (per El Grafo). Very good light, very interesting view.--Jebulon (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places
