Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monarch butterfly mexico 2012.jpg

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

File:Monarch butterfly mexico 2012.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2012 at 14:02:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • So? DOF issues are always a variable in real life photography. DOF is a resource to attract attention, or distract. Opinions are ok, especially when well founded, if not, silence is a better critic. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment While I respect Richard´s opinion, even though I may not like his vote, it is an oppose vote based on a qualitative appreciation of a concrete technical aspect based on photographic criteria, however, Archaeodontosaurus and Gidip´s vote stating low quality is really a low quality vote itself in my opinion, for they do not offer a valid technical or aesthetical reason, or even an opinion. What constitutes low quality or far from FP quality? Such statements never come from knowledgeable critics. FPC can really do without this type of voting. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not satisfied with the composition as well but I hope you admit that I'am not able to write an essay for every candidate (diction). Best regards   • Richard • [®] • 09:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, I am very much OK with your vote... I really do not have a problem with it... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment My opinion does not in any of the esthetic, but on the technical weakness of this picture. Much of the animal (the wing, the head) is blurred, the flower on which it is blurred. The upper flowers in a red color fringe. This aberration that found on the leaves on the right side of the image. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you know that the human eye only sees in complete sharpness about 1% of the field of vision? Whay do you think that is? To selectively focus and make sense of the world... if we were to see everything is sharp focus the world would be a complete visual confusion... so in photography. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree (only) with this point; wonder why people always demand everything in focus by using small aperture. For me, this means less details overall where as big aperture means much details on the focal point neglecting other areas. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why people demand extreme DOF? Simply because sometimes people do not know better. It is like asking that every note in a musical piece be played with the same intensity, duration or volume. Music is the interaction of notes, with different volumes, duration, etc., etc.... photography is visual music. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too; just responded while seeing a discussion on DOF. Sorry if I hurt you.(There are so many images (not only of me) rejected in QIC by saying the extreme body parts like the wing tip of a dragonfly are out of focus.) Jkadavoor (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Perhaps Tomascastelazo, which undoubtedly is an experienced photographer, should tell us what he thinks is so special in this picture of a butterfly and what makes it so much worthy of a FP status unlike the so many other butterfly photos in Commons. Gidip (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good try, but that is not the way it works. Creators do not need to explain, critics, on the other hand, need firm ground to support their statements. General statements from critics that stand on comments like "far from FP quality" are unaceptable. A critic supports his opinions on more or less objecive grounds that have to do with observable characterictics based on their knowledge of the media and universal principles, not on their subjective appreciation that come fron an innate sense of aesthetics. Part of the problem in modern times is that anyone with a camera calls her/himself a photographer in the same manner that anyone with a computer or typewriter would call himself a writer or a poet. Now, on the other hand, if you oppose this picture on solely on your opinion, I would have nothing to say about that. My specific problem with your oppose is that you declare it to lack quality as if that were true. That I challenge, your opinion I do not. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would only benefit the discussion if you explained what you think is so good in this image. You dismissed the sharpness criterion, suggest other criteria which make it so special. I don't see any. And I'm a bit ashamed of myself that I am carrying on this stupid, useless discussion. Is this a hoax? Gidip (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that I uploaded the image and proposed it for FP is in fact proof of my opinion that it is good enough, not needing any additional explanation. I then put it up for evaluation, with the hope that it would be qualified according to well established photographic criteria, which has really rarely been the case here in my years of participation. There is a well established methodology for evaluation of photographs which has historically been ignored here, whether people know it or not, like it or not, do it or not. Suggest other criteria? How about knowledge of the subject matter? Stupid, useless discussion? If you make it so. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Monarch_butterfly_mexico_2012.jpg&oldid=69998225"