Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iniö Church 1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Iniö Church 1.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2021 at 06:11:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Finland
Info created, uploaded & nominated by kallerna —kallerna (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Support —kallerna (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)- Support Seven Pandas (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose No wow, just a QI IMO. Composition is also a bit left-heavy, with too much empty space on the right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)- Oppose exactly per KoH. And please crop out the cut-off twigs on the right edge. --Kreuzschnabel 20:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Neutral Proposing crop per last two opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- That would definitely be an improvement, but it wouldn't be enough to change my vote as church FPs are a dime a dozen and this one has nothing setting it apart such as beautiful lighting/clouds or very high resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Dear King of Hearts, sorry, but the phrase “church FPs are a dime a dozen” seems very derogatory to me and is an offence to all creators of FPs showing churches, even to the ones who created the very best pictures, e.g. Diliff. I would be happy if good photographs of churches would be that cheap as “a dime a dozen”, but looking at all the myriads of mediocre and bad photos of churches here or on Flickr one can easily learn that it is not that easy ;–). IMHO it would be better to avoid such derogatory phrases in general, regardless whether we are talking about photos of churches, of landscapes, of animals, or whatever. Wouldn’t it be enough for your argument to say e.g. “we have alredy got many FPs of churches”? – Please do not misunderstand this as a personal attack; I am targetting the phrase, not you. IMHO the conversation on this pages is getting rougher from month to month, we have already put off some talented photographers, we should not strengthen that bad tendency. --Aristeas (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies, it could have been worded better. Diliff's high-resolution HDR interiors are absolutely deserving of the FP star. What I mean is that a picture of a church of middling resolution with no distinctive features at thumbnail size does not meet the FP bar for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! Now this is an excellent, clear and distinct formulation and a very reasonable criterion, of course. All the best, --Aristeas (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies, it could have been worded better. Diliff's high-resolution HDR interiors are absolutely deserving of the FP star. What I mean is that a picture of a church of middling resolution with no distinctive features at thumbnail size does not meet the FP bar for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Dear King of Hearts, sorry, but the phrase “church FPs are a dime a dozen” seems very derogatory to me and is an offence to all creators of FPs showing churches, even to the ones who created the very best pictures, e.g. Diliff. I would be happy if good photographs of churches would be that cheap as “a dime a dozen”, but looking at all the myriads of mediocre and bad photos of churches here or on Flickr one can easily learn that it is not that easy ;–). IMHO it would be better to avoid such derogatory phrases in general, regardless whether we are talking about photos of churches, of landscapes, of animals, or whatever. Wouldn’t it be enough for your argument to say e.g. “we have alredy got many FPs of churches”? – Please do not misunderstand this as a personal attack; I am targetting the phrase, not you. IMHO the conversation on this pages is getting rougher from month to month, we have already put off some talented photographers, we should not strengthen that bad tendency. --Aristeas (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- That would definitely be an improvement, but it wouldn't be enough to change my vote as church FPs are a dime a dozen and this one has nothing setting it apart such as beautiful lighting/clouds or very high resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support IMHO this one has deserved a little bit more love ;–). Yes, the “wow” is a very subjective factor, and for me this image definitely has got “wow”. A very picturesque church, definitely with some historic importance, built in an interesting style combining undressed stone, brick stone and wood, seen from a advantageous point of view, surrounded by picturesque (again) vegetation. The composition reminds me of some Dutch veduta painters from the 17th century. Because of this I would definitely not crop the image – the current framing is very well-balanced, we need to see the stone wall before the church until its end at the right and also that glimpse of the golden cornfield. There is only one disruptive element, namely the cut-off twigs on the right edge (marked with an image note). But cropping the whole image at the right to remove them would IMHO damage the composition (see above), so I would clone these twigs out – I see no ethical problem here, a mere gust of wind would be enough to move these twigs out of the frame, so it is also OK to clone them out. --Aristeas (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Info Recropped! —kallerna (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Weak support Beautiful motif. I would prefer it if the sky were a little more interesting - the featureless blue doesn't provide the eye with anything to look at except the church itself. Cmao20 (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)- Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice church photo, but no wow, plus the quality is not really good; plus the tower is tilted. --A.Savin 20:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per A. Savin and others. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Neutral In accordance with Aristeas' factually convincing argumentation. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
