Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monumento de Guerra, Jardín del Patio, Múnich, Alemania, 2017-07-07, DD 03.jpg

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

File:Monumento de Guerra, Jardín del Patio, Múnich, Alemania, 2017-07-07, DD 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2017 at 08:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

War memorial monument ("Kriegerdenkmal"), Hofgarten, Munich, Germany.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Monuments_and_memorials
  •  Info War memorial monument ("Kriegerdenkmal"), Hofgarten, in front of the Bayerische Staatskanzlei, Munich, Germany. The monument is composed of an open crypt, that consist of 12 stone blocks, lcoated in the middle of a rectangular pit. The crypt just contains the statue of a dead soldier, a work of Bernhard Bleeker. The monument was inaugurated in 1924 but the origintal statue, that was replaced by a bronze cast in 1972, and is now exhibited in the Bavarian Army museum in Ingolstadt. All by me, Poco2 08:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Poco2 08:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Ah, that was on my bucket list as well... well, too late. Good, important nom. But why didn't you use a tripod? Technically the image could be better. Considering that it was taken handheld, it's awesome, of course, and it's certainly good enough to pass here. But it's not that the monument is so crowded that using a tripod is impossible... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I shot it without a tripod, checked the quality, I found it pretty good and came to the conclusion that a tripod wasn't really required. To be honest I didn't expect then to nominate it for FPC but when I saw it on the monitor I really enjoyed the lighting, so, here we're...Poco2 17:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A little distorted, but maybe since it was handheld that can't be helped anymore than it might have already been. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Ermell (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak  Support Not the sharpest but quite good for the conditions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - I'm neutral because the size of the photo is probably great enough for the noise and unsharpness of the statue and closer foreground to be OK, but I really don't understand why several of you think that we should relax our standards ("considering/since it was handheld") because Poco chose unnecessarily not to use a tripod. Why should we take into consideration that a tripod was not used in a situation in which it could have been used? The more I think about that in particular, the more tempted I am to oppose on that basis, but I will not, because of the aforementioned file size, and also the excellent composition and combination of light and shade. It may be good enough to feature - but without consideration of how it was taken. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ikan: I totally disagree with your comment and the direction it goes. The main reason why we all take our cameras and go out is because it is fun. I cannot agree that anybody takes away my freedom to take the pictures the way, when and how I want. If a picture deserves a FP star it should get it, independently whether it could be even better. If your point would be considered valid the next one would say "why did you use that lens instead of that other one, I am sure the result would have been even better for this scene" or "why where you there at 2 p.m. instead of 5 p.m. the ligthing then would have been even better" or "why didn't you used that day your 50 MPx camera and just the 40 MPx one"? Sorry, but we are talking about freedom and about fun here. Pictures have to be judged the way they are. If somebody tops one we can always start a delist and replace process but that's a different story. Poco2 06:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying it isn't good enough to feature; I'm saying that we shouldn't judge the photo by lower standards because you didn't use a tripod. That's what it sounds to me like some people are doing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ikan: the question hier ist the "even" before "better". If a picture is over the FP bar, than it should become FP. If the picture is below it shouldn't, and if the reason for that is the timing, the equipment, whather, then that's perfectly fine. But my impression here was that you consider that the picture deserves FP status but you didn't support because it could have been managed even better. Poco2 07:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm genuinely neutral. I think it may warrant a feature, but I'm not sure because the noise and unsharpness in the foreground give me some pause. And I wanted to express my opinion that we should judge the photo as it is, not by handicapping it on the basis of it being a hand-held photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik(talk) 15:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Monuments_and_memorials
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Monumento_de_Guerra,_Jardín_del_Patio,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2017-07-07,_DD_03.jpg&oldid=263791997"