Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Egretta garzetta, Sète cf05.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Egretta garzetta, Sète cf05.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2017 at 08:04:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Neutral I understand the difficulties of shooting this at 600 mm of focal length but I wish it was a bit sharper and the reflections in the water would be clearer (the water stiller). --Basotxerri (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I agree that the bird should be in focus and that the reflection is not good enough. Charles (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment very sharp when a bit downsampled Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)- @Charlesjsharp: @Basotxerri: I think my version was poorly edited, I uploaded a new version. I think this is visualy a good image, not all images have to be megasharp, here the mood/coomposition is the key IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment My comment still stands and I don't think it would be FP even if the bird was sharp and not looking away from us. Charles (talk)
- Comment - I like the composition very much, and ripply water is fine with me. I would consider voting for a feature if you'd redefine the photo as a land-and-waterscape with an egret, rather than a photo of an egret. As a photo of an egret, it's not sharp enough, but as a composition with an egret, I think you have a much better argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: I don't understand "redefine". Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- In another words, change the filename and description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Done Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll live with this photo for a while. Arguably, the plants could also be sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- I hesitated to upload a downsampled image, with a size still reasonable for wildlife photo, but after this dicussion and the comments made by Colin, I uploaded the bigger resolution... @Colin: , you're right, there are inconsistencies, or upload the biggest version, or we prefer to content the little buddies... Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- I take your point - it's a very large photo. You could have addressed this a little less harshly, though. I'm not sure if you meant to be very harsh, but "prefer to content the little buddies" comes off as very harsh. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Also, here's the thing: I would like to regard this as a land-and-waterscape with a bird in it, but you are either defining it as a bird picture or a picture of a particular species of plant. The size of this particular photo aside, I think that pictures that are expressly of particular plants or birds, not of landscape that includes them, should be expected to be sharper. Do you see what I mean when I say that "Landscape with Egret and [Name of Plant]" has a very different feeling than "[Latin name of plant] with [Latin name of bird]"? The first photo is being presented as artistic; the second is being presented as an encyclopedic or scientific illustration. We are currently having a debate about this issue in Consensual Review on QIC, and I've been arguing there for disregarding the stated intention of the photographer and just looking at the photograph and judging it to be a cityscape with pigeons, not a photo expressly of pigeons. However, on FPC, I think that the way a photograph is presented can be an important consideration. And even on QIC, my view is losing and the stated intent of the photographer seems to be carrying the day (causing the photo to fail CR). Please note that I am not saying I will vote against this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'll try to study the photo better later, but Ikan, you mention the "stated intent of the photographer" and "the way a photograph is presented". I do often suggest that nominators say something when they nominate the image. If you recall from the Tower of London ravens, I tried to offer it " not as a plain species identification photo but as a fun portrait of two characters". But I said that in the nomination, not in the file description nor filename. I don't think that "As a photographer, this is how I want you to judge my photo" belongs in either the filename or file description. Nor does our file renaming policy permit changes merely to suit the interests of FPC/QIC. Different people will take different things from a work of art/literature. I'm no student of such things, but my understanding is that art/literature criticism rejects the idea that the artist has priority or the final say in how their work is viewed. That aside, I think the mistake Christian made here is to suggest his reason for thinking this is FP standard is the "mood/composition" only after two negative reviews. Of course, my comments on the Ravens photo didn't stop some judging it as with all our other species identification photos, so no approach works reliably. We are still at the mercy of how reviewers wish to judge, whether they are in a good mood, or inclined one way or the other, and all the more so at QI where a single reviewer typically has the only say, and there little scope of influencing them prior to review. I think wrt to file resolution, filename, file description, one should aim to deliver the best one can for our educational mission and wide publication usage, and not shape any of those just in order to gain FP/QI to the detriment or confusion of some other educational aim. Nominating here and at QI is always a roulette wheel. -- Colin (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- I understand your points. And not that it's a reply to anything you said, but I think I need to live with the photo a little more, spend a few more periods of time moving my eyes around it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'll try to study the photo better later, but Ikan, you mention the "stated intent of the photographer" and "the way a photograph is presented". I do often suggest that nominators say something when they nominate the image. If you recall from the Tower of London ravens, I tried to offer it " not as a plain species identification photo but as a fun portrait of two characters". But I said that in the nomination, not in the file description nor filename. I don't think that "As a photographer, this is how I want you to judge my photo" belongs in either the filename or file description. Nor does our file renaming policy permit changes merely to suit the interests of FPC/QIC. Different people will take different things from a work of art/literature. I'm no student of such things, but my understanding is that art/literature criticism rejects the idea that the artist has priority or the final say in how their work is viewed. That aside, I think the mistake Christian made here is to suggest his reason for thinking this is FP standard is the "mood/composition" only after two negative reviews. Of course, my comments on the Ravens photo didn't stop some judging it as with all our other species identification photos, so no approach works reliably. We are still at the mercy of how reviewers wish to judge, whether they are in a good mood, or inclined one way or the other, and all the more so at QI where a single reviewer typically has the only say, and there little scope of influencing them prior to review. I think wrt to file resolution, filename, file description, one should aim to deliver the best one can for our educational mission and wide publication usage, and not shape any of those just in order to gain FP/QI to the detriment or confusion of some other educational aim. Nominating here and at QI is always a roulette wheel. -- Colin (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Also, here's the thing: I would like to regard this as a land-and-waterscape with a bird in it, but you are either defining it as a bird picture or a picture of a particular species of plant. The size of this particular photo aside, I think that pictures that are expressly of particular plants or birds, not of landscape that includes them, should be expected to be sharper. Do you see what I mean when I say that "Landscape with Egret and [Name of Plant]" has a very different feeling than "[Latin name of plant] with [Latin name of bird]"? The first photo is being presented as artistic; the second is being presented as an encyclopedic or scientific illustration. We are currently having a debate about this issue in Consensual Review on QIC, and I've been arguing there for disregarding the stated intention of the photographer and just looking at the photograph and judging it to be a cityscape with pigeons, not a photo expressly of pigeons. However, on FPC, I think that the way a photograph is presented can be an important consideration. And even on QIC, my view is losing and the stated intent of the photographer seems to be carrying the day (causing the photo to fail CR). Please note that I am not saying I will vote against this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- I take your point - it's a very large photo. You could have addressed this a little less harshly, though. I'm not sure if you meant to be very harsh, but "prefer to content the little buddies" comes off as very harsh. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- I hesitated to upload a downsampled image, with a size still reasonable for wildlife photo, but after this dicussion and the comments made by Colin, I uploaded the bigger resolution... @Colin: , you're right, there are inconsistencies, or upload the biggest version, or we prefer to content the little buddies... Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll live with this photo for a while. Arguably, the plants could also be sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- In another words, change the filename and description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I think unfavorable light is the main issue here; top lights making the eye, beak and legs in shadows. Jee 09:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Jee, without wishing to offend anyone, it is by far, for the moment the most interesting and most relevant review. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support after retitling. Daniel Case (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Whether this is one of the very best photos on Commons is a difficult question, and I don't know the answer, so the question I instead deal with is, now that I've contended with this composition for several days, do I want a wider public to have the chance to do so when it's featured? And to that, I answer Yes. It's an interesting composition which is good for someone who wants to spend some quiet time in contemplation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
