Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Consumer Reports - Zojirushi coffeemaker.tif

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

File:Consumer Reports - Zojirushi coffeemaker.tif, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2016 at 16:10:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Zojirushi coffeemaker
I'm not really seeing any significant noise, certainly not "very noisy", and nothing to worry about for any publication usage. The problem really, in terms of professional publication, is that this is sort of unfinished -- it requires significant Photoshopping to be usable. However, Bluerasberry, Commons lacks good quality photos of utilitarian objects like these. Most amateur shots are a lot lot worse. So if Consumer Reports is willing to donate part of its archive of photos then that would be great. I would think that especially for models no longer in the shops, the commercial value of any photo would be extremely low, and it might as well get used via Commons than sit on some hard disc somewhere. -- Colin (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I see sharpened noise speckles all over the frame. On the plastic parts, I’d have accounted this to the surface design, but it’s on the shiny metal parts as well. --Kreuzschnabel 16:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can see all sorts of things with a magnifying glass. Look closely enough and you'll see the RGB dots on your LCD :-). I really think this is at the level of irrelevance, and noting that it is a negative point ("very noisy") is I think harmful as it just makes (a) professional photographers despair that we are just pixel-peeping and (b) nominators want to downsize to avoid such issues. -- Colin (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alt version

Zojirushi coffeemaker

The Photographer Thanks for the fix. You made it a nicer and more useful picture, regardless of the outcome of this discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I think this improvement makes the image much more useful, with distracting imperfections. However, the grey background and the very utilitarian design of this particular coffee-maker mean I don't think this is good enough for FP. It is sad we have so few domestic appliances at FP, and I mention for comparison my own File:Electric steam iron.jpg which is better on-white and a more attractive product. Alternatively is the on-black advertising product shot such as File:Sony A77 II.jpg. I suggest that a colourful (bright red?) and more retro design could have the visual appeal for FP, if carefully shot and lit. -- Colin (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I might not understand the purpose of featured pictures. Is it more desirable to depict something as it is commonly experienced, or is this more a system for identifying what is artistically extraordinary? I choose this coffeemaker because it seemed as neutral and mundane as a coffeemaker of this sort might be.
I saw that iron photo years ago when you submitted it and used it as an argument for Consumer Reports to share more product photos. Thanks for sharing - I might not have gotten these photos were it not for that iron. I only now got permission for this one and a few others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or simply this object is used --The Photographer (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Photographer It is a new product. All products here go to the photo studio before being tested. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - I respect Colin's points but think this clean picture of a consumer product is fine to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Per Ikan; I am satisfied with this photo and find it as striking as anything you'd find in a magazine. Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Per Bluerasberry's question about what criteria are used to judge whether a picture should be featured: We had a discussion about that recently. See Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 18#Change the number of votes to feature a picture?, starting with my comment below the "-1" votes for the "New proposal". But that doesn't cover everything. Your first reference should be Commons:Image guidelines: "Featured pictures candidates should meet all the following requirements, must have a 'wow factor' and may or may not have been created by a Commons user. Given sufficient 'wow factor' and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality." You'll see a series of technical criteria and a few compositional guidelines, but if they are met, the next question is the "wow factor", and that's not subject to objective measurements. You'll see from the discussion I linked that different reviewers give greater or lesser weight to encyclopedic and general educational value. Some of us think that artistic value is paramount in whether a photo has wow, while others aren't even willing to vote for a photo they think is of no educational value. I won't be surprised if this photo isn't featured because the motif doesn't wow many people, and that's a perfectly reasonable point of view. I like the streamlined character of the design and the clarity of the photo, so I'm fine with featuring it, but the point is very arguable. However, there have certainly been examples of otherwise not very interesting motifs that have been photographed so well that the photo has been featured; for example, XRay's photo of Weeze Airport looks set to be the next, but it certainly won't be the first. Another example is that we featured a photo of the Parkhotel in Pörtschach by Johann Jaritz even though some of us consider it an eyesore. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination might have succeeded if this alt were proposed rather than one with clear flaws. Personally, I think our Commons:Image guidelines are weak and too long. -- Colin (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to see people's points of view if a discussion is taken up at the talk page for the guidelines on possible changes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Consumer_Reports_-_Zojirushi_coffeemaker.tif&oldid=197349151"