Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lido de Thau, Sète cf04.jpg

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

File:Lido de Thau, Sète cf04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2017 at 17:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lido de Thau, Sète, France
  • Well partly, if the crop is close to 16:9, then it might as well be because then it looks great full-screen on modern displays that are nearly all 16:9. But mainly I think a lot of landscapes look better in a wider format than 3:2. A 2:1 crop would also work here. I guess 16:9 is a compromise format between a panoramic cinema aspect and the old 4:3 TV standard. You went "wow" at the cinema but not with your old "box" TV. If you are asking why crop at all on Commons, then I think we are presenting a work-of-art rather than just a negative for someone else to crop later. -- Colin (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the explanation. Guess I'm just old-fashioned when I adjust my crops to what's in the picture rather than the other way around if the option is free. Working with only predesigned formats can be good in some cases, but I still see FPs more as paintings in a gallery rather than desktop wallpapers. Maybe I'll grow up some day. ;) cart-Talk 22:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cart, I think the argument for a custom crop that suits the image is strongest, definitely. But sometimes/oftentimes there isn't a precise cut that is best and choosing some standard off-the-shelf ratio is an easy way to try alternatives and/or to suggest alternatives. There is something special about an image being frame-filling on one's monitor as then the monitor provides a frame, rather than a black bar or some intrusive portion of Windows. I found, here, that looking at a 16:9 crop fullscreen made me enjoy the photo more than a slightly squarer crop in a window. But that's just me, and doesn't hold for all pictures. The consideration that one should not just accept the 3:2 crop made by the camera, and try wider, squarer or taller crops, is widely made in photography books/guides, and 16:9 sometimes recommended as being a more natural fit for landscape than 3:2. As with all guidelines, it doesn't always apply or make good sense. As Christian notes, this isn't 3:2 anyway, and his crop is somewhere in-between at 16:10. -- Colin (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Just for info, on the right of the image the water is a former salt evaporation pond, now it's a kind of local nature reserve. The "calm water" between the land and the small wall was a canal for vessels carrying salt. To my greatest despair, there is almost permanently a strong NNW wind in my region (70-110km), and if this is the paradise for all species of windsurfers, it's terribly hard to make the macro photography, just look at the grass, it is always bent and shaken by the wind. Regarding the crop, I just tried the 16x9 crop in my pc, but was not very convinced that it had so much, or in all case the grass with the current 16x10 crop don't bother me, then I prefer to keep my favorite format. This image with a bigger windsurfer is also not bad IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Per cart Poco2 10:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  week support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

B&W alternative version
@Alchemist-hp: this is not the color version wich have been desaturated, or at least not "only desaturated", it is another edition, though apparently not very successful. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is only a pseudo BW image. Not less, not more, but this is a philosophical question ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This remember me some of your previous discussions with Colin, and I tend to disagree with you. BW can be an editorial choice, we always add more saturation, vibrance, contrast or all kind of things that change a bit the reality, why not less saturation? why not no saturation?. The only important thing is not philosophical but the visual message/result. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it is and remains only "my opinion". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A "pseudo BW image"? "Only BW films are valid"? What a load of nonsense. I'm sorry, Alchemist-hp, you cannot say these things and claim validity for them by insisting the are your "opinion". Buy a book on B&W digital photography and learn that digital has many advantages over film for B&W. An exception can be made for large-format B&W film, which still has some advantages over most digital cameras in terms of resolution. Digital B&W is not just about desaturating a colour image. Your dogmatic rejection of digital B&W photography is harmful to this project IMO. -- Colin (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can say it and I did it. This is my opinion! You can not change my mind. Not for us, normal Wikipedia-photographers. Or ... the photographer can me say and justify me: why he did a digital BW photo! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC) P.S.: I don't believe that: "Your dogmatic rejection of digital B&W photography is harmful to this project IMO" too.[reply]
I did an attempt in BW simply because I like digital BW images, I like also a lot the color but I really like digital BW photos, and I would want to be able to make good bw images, that's all. Though with my attempt, my image lose something and indeed the color version is better, but it's because of the subject, light and maybe because of my edition too. The light/mood necessary for a successful BW is maybe not the same that for a successful colored image. I mean all BW images will not be necessarily so good in color, and at the opposite, all good color images can not not be so good when in BW. BW digital photgraphy is a true photographic technique, that begins with a choice of light/subject. For my candidate the light/subject is maybe not adequate for to make a successful BW image. But it is not a question of principle. It is a bit as if an oenologist taste a wine, but they says the wine is not good simply because they don't like the bottle... Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with your wine analogy. How a B&W image is made is irrelevant: only the result matters. Too much stubborn ignorance, I'm afraid. I don't need to change your mind Alchemist-hp, though I'd prefer if you went out and educated yourself on this matter, but I'd rather you stopped opposing for this reason. The WORLD does not agree with you, and your oppose votes on this matter are disruptive. -- Colin (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In result: aganin a nice sample for a BW image that isn't good enough compared with a color image. My opinion in 99.9 % of all our comons BW "digital made" images are not better then a color image. @Colin my opinion isn't ignorance, my opinion is my opinion! You can accept it or not, but this will be still my opinion. Regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine to say an individual image doesn't work (ether B&W or colour) but not to dogmatically reject digital b&w. To claim a picture does not work because of how it is made, is no longer an opinion, but a false conclusion born of ignorance and prejudice that have no place on this forum. It's like saying nearly all famous photographers are men, therefore women cannot take good photographs. That's not an opinion, it's just wrong. Saying "my opinion is my opinion" is just vacuous. -- Colin (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, another approach: this is a democratic vote and I'm not a fan of "digitaly" BW images. The End and exit. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't help you, I'm afraid. And yes, I would you would "end and exit" with this sort of nonsense. Prejudice is prejudice. -- Colin (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong agreement with Colin and with Christian's point about the wine, rather than the bottle. Side point, though: I don't have the impression that almost all famous photographers have been men. Women have been among the important photographers for over a century. But that's a tangent, and your point is made. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 21:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/France
The chosen alternative is: File:Lido de Thau, Sète cf04.jpg
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Lido_de_Thau,_Sète_cf04.jpg&oldid=229731944"