Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grand canyon from Bright Angel.jpg

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

File:Grand canyon from Bright Angel.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2010 at 22:54:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose 25% from the image are to dark, bad crop, I'm missing the sky. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- Nothing in the image is sharp (lack of focus or motion blur ?)-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --патриот8790 (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. The Grand Canyon is impressive, this picture isn't. It surprises me that it is getting any support at all. The crop is arbitraryrandom and the technical quality is just bad. Why was this even nominated?! --Dschwen (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Dschewn: Agree on technical quality, but not on crop... How can you crop the GC? All crops are arbitrary. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely not. Yes, you have to crop, but that does not mean all crops are arbitraryrandom. The composition is what separates a good shot from a bad shot (provided that the technical quality is there). Saying all crops are arbitraryrandom is like saying you should not look through the viewfinder anymore (or screen on cheapo cameras ;-) ).--Dschwen (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC) PS.: this nomination also provides more clues as to who seems to be judging thumbnails only... :-( --Dschwen (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is really a rethorical argument. All crops, conscious or not, are arbitrary, they depend on the criteria of the photographer (well, maybe ;o)). I will admit to the quality issues on this pic, but not on the crop. You may not like the crop, that is up to you, and I am ok with that. My compositional desicion may not work on you, but that does not mean it is bad in a universal sense. That does not mean however, that all my composition is good. It is all relative my friends... and you know it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ha! Actually this is not at all a rhetorical argument, but you are right to contest my original assertion that the crop is arbitraryrandom. That is just how it looked to me. If you tell me you thought about the composition and made a conscious choice than I guess it isn't arbitraryrandom (but still doesn't work for me). Again, the arguments that follow are not rhetoric at all. I firmly believe that a compositional decision by a good photographer should be distinguishable form randomly pointing the camera (or if you like: giving a camera to a monkey. Then again, if you give a million cameras to a million monkeys... => Ansel Adams ;-) ). --Dschwen (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, of course that a conscious decision on crop has a better chance of becoming an acceptable picture under universally agreed on photographic principles, it is still an arbitrary decision (definition by webster: 1 : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>). Perhaps you are referring to random composition, which is different, or monkey photography (definition by webster: a haphazard course— at random : without definite aim, direction, rule, or method <subjects chosen at random>). So if this is not a rethorical argument, then it is definitely a semantic one. Now, I invite you to really take a photographic look at the composition, and look for the intention of the composition. Evidently on the first pass it did not work for you and that could either be because a) my technique is flawed or b) you are not an observer. c) both. Think photographically. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh noes! Beaten by Webster. Yes, I was thinking of random rather than arbitrary. As for you little multiple choice quiz: I'm fairly sure that answer a) is correct. Even if it sounds arrogant: I'll just point to my photographic track-record to save myself some annoying justifications. --Dschwen (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • LOL! Well, a mexican standoff... answer for me is b, and I also point out to my photographic track-record... whose´s is bigger??? I´ll show you mine if you show me yours! At least you have put the finger on the issue that I have always pointed out: the decision to support/oppose resides on a subjective criteria, the mention of your track record is just that, and your track record has to be validated by qualified outsiders. And the problem still remains: The quality of the votes is dependent on the quality of the knowledge of the voters, and the result is that a lot of quality pictures are set aside, bad picters are given a pass, and a lot of qualified photographers get discouraged in this process. I have to admit, however, that things are not as bad as in times past. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, I don't even know what you mean with your option b). How can I not be an observer? Are you accusing me of not looking carefully enough at your image, or of being incompetent of judging it properly? In any case I would have preferred an option d) my composition simply does not look appealing to you, which would have made this conversation a bit less confrontational... --Dschwen (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Easy man... I didn´t think this conversation confrontational, but rethorical. By your own logic then I have to interpret your choosing option "a" as my technique flawed, and therefore stand accused of being a technically deficient photographer, and your judgement right, but you won´t accept the possibility of my technique correct and your observation flawed? Not fair, since this is really an argument over opinion, and yes, option "d" would have been desired. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, bad technical quality. --Aqwis (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination Duh!!! I uploaded wrong pic. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Grand_canyon_from_Bright_Angel.jpg&oldid=37798752"