Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leichtathletik WM 2013 Moskau 100 m Vorlauf.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Leichtathletik WM 2013 Moskau 100 m Vorlauf.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2014 at 19:41:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Tobi 87 - uploaded by Tobi 87 - nominated by Tobi 87 -- Tobi 87 (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Tobi 87 (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)- Weak Support. Nice feeling of motion - only wish it were a bit bigger. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Very weak Support. It's really good, but IMO it would be good to see a better resolution. The size is just 2.5 MP.--XRay talk 06:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Neutral. I was going to oppose for too much motion blur. But the more I look at the image the more I appreciate that. If the head and face of the fellow in the middle looking at the camera were sharper and somehow more of the focal point in the image I think it would be a winner (even though he is in 3rd or 4th place. ;-) Nothing immediately draws my eye to him even as he faces me, however. --Kbh3rdtalk 01:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)- Support - Resolution could be higher, but interesting image. Humans (in motion!) as FP would be nice. Pugilist (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support perfect --Mile (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support For the creativity in its creation. Falls short of many of the usual technical expectations for an FP, but lets try something different. It has a lots of mitigating wow. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I like the idea, but I cannot get by the blurriness of the image. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)- Support reminds me of this other image. I love panning, it is impossible to get all runners sharp, you can only follow one with your camera and they all go up and down while they run, it's not like a car. Maybe 1/15 was too much time, but FP imo. --Kadellar (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Neutral
- Support I like this one better then the one in the Telegraph. --Lošmi (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support Outstanding. I wish we had more participants here who value creativity and expression. Congratulations! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Frank Schulenburg, I don't think your comment about valuing "creativity and expression" is fair. Even the oppose comments mention that it such a creative image would be good if it had worked. I could counter that I wish more participants evaluated more than the thumbnail. -- Colin (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Colin, you know I respect your work here and on Wikipedia a lot. My comment wasn't directed at you – I didn't intend to hurt anyone's feelings. At the same time, I personally feel that the people here rank technical details very high and creativity and expression comparably low. The way I experience it, candidates have a better chance succeeding even with somewhat lifeless images (mine included) as long as every part of the image is sharp and no one can find stitching errors. Now, that might be a result of the necessity to shoot in a “documentary style” and therefore unavoidable. However, I feel it is ok to applaud out-of-the-box candidates for their achievements. Again, I didn't mean to offend anyone. It's just that I like this particular photo a lot and I would like to see more of this kind. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Colin, I agree with Frank. Whether it works or not is subjective. For me it works, not only in preview but also in the full (albeit modest) resolution. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree to an extent, especially about technical skill/perfection being too highly considered. I'm not sure creativity is the quality we should directly value at FP (one reason I started the Photo Challenge -- to encourage creativity even if one can't achieve FP standard with the result), though being creative should lead to better and more interesting images. Creativity isn't an end in itself. Expression is part of artistic merits of an image along with arrangement, colour, dynamics, etc. It is here I feel the image doesn't succeed, never mind the sharpness (and it might be possible to sharpen one head, if there was one to focus on). Having looked at our collection of featured sports pictures, I've changed my oppose to neutral. It is hard to capture a great sporting image, and we have featured a lot more ordinary and unspectacular images than this. -- Colin (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Colin, I agree with Frank. Whether it works or not is subjective. For me it works, not only in preview but also in the full (albeit modest) resolution. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Colin, you know I respect your work here and on Wikipedia a lot. My comment wasn't directed at you – I didn't intend to hurt anyone's feelings. At the same time, I personally feel that the people here rank technical details very high and creativity and expression comparably low. The way I experience it, candidates have a better chance succeeding even with somewhat lifeless images (mine included) as long as every part of the image is sharp and no one can find stitching errors. Now, that might be a result of the necessity to shoot in a “documentary style” and therefore unavoidable. However, I feel it is ok to applaud out-of-the-box candidates for their achievements. Again, I didn't mean to offend anyone. It's just that I like this particular photo a lot and I would like to see more of this kind. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above Jiel (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports
