Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nissan Altima at Salton Sea 2013.jpg

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

File:Nissan Altima at Salton Sea 2013.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2014 at 12:22:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nissan Altima at Salton Sea
  •  Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak Support IMHO, the lighting is excellent and quality is decent but the composition could have been better. I wish the car could have been captured front-on rather than side-on.Nikhil (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Pro: Light works well, nice scenery; Con: 15mm equiv. makes the rear of the car superlong, not sure about the gap between palmtree and car. --DXR (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DXR: I've very corrected stretching very moderately. Keep in mind that the car is quite long :) I like the gap between palmtree and car - it brings some tension into the photo. I've used wide-angle to include as much as possible from the interesting environment and placed the car just under the remarkable cloud. I was a bit in hurry because the outside temperature was 47°C (117°F) :) --Tuxyso (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have actually looked up normal images of the car before commenting the first time and stay with my opinion. I see and understand your points, but I just do not really find the overall composition pleasing to my eyes, sorry. But it's just a matter of personal taste of course... --DXR (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Has the technical quality and "wow" factor. Deserves to become a featured picture. --DAJF (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It seems really partially stretched. The rear wheel is not round, the front is. The upper part of the sky is too dark. Polfilter? -- -donald- (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've used a polfilter. But for this kind of motive I really like it and think it is fortunate :) Nonetheless the sky was very dark blue. Stretching: You have some kind of distortion with such wide-angle shots, I guess that is not changeable anymore. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Composition just not working here. Shame, because there are the elements of a car commercial here. -- Colin (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Colin: What had you done better? Where do you see room for improvements? --Tuxyso (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The critic is entitled to comment without being talented enough to do better!! :-). The components are far apart with a hole in the middle. The elements on the left of the tree are distracting. The car overlaps the sea in a way that seems accidental rather than posed. The white sand needs to be an out-of-focus background rather than something so detailed you see the imperfections (such as the weed near the car's tyre). The car is too small and in an undramatic side-view pose. The front of the car is not as well lit as the back. I don't know what your intention is but I guess I'd be looking to create an image that makes one think "Beautiful car in a perfect setting", but where the subject (the car) is dominant and detailed and the setting is more of an impression. -- Colin (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Colin, first: Thanks a lot for your circumstantial comment - I really appreciate constructive comments with ideas for improvements. It's a good question what my original intention of the shot was. I am no commercial photographer thus "Beautiful car in a perfect setting" was not my very intention. The location, the Salton Sea, has been a very popular holiday location in the 19th century. Famous stars like Frank Sinatra had their fincas there. But the sea was massively polluted by farming and is now acid. The past splendour of the place is gone, the villages around the sea become more and more ghost village, see e.g. this photo and tourist do not yet go there. Thus my original intention was not perfection. At the first glance the setting implies such perfection (blue sky, nice clours sea, palms, ...) but at the second glance this perfection is undermined: dirt on the sand, the gap between car and palm tree, the massively leaning electricity pylons at the very left. I confess that the composition is improveable if one had moved the car - I just went out (46°C) and tried to compose a photo as good as possible - I was satisfied with the result. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very interesting. Well all I can do is repeat my request that folk offer a rationale for this picture like you've done now. Some pictures work simply as straightforward subject shots for WP, say, but others are more complex or have interesting shooting conditions. See Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stipiturus malachurus - Southwest National Park.jpg for another case where it would be interesting to know the situation and be explicit about the technical challenges. There are feelings about this photo and the landscape that are in your head and didn't translate to the bare picture nom. If it was part of a visual narrative of the area, then it might have worked better (though I'm not sure how this car fits into that story). It would be nice if someone offered such a visual narrative as a FP set, say. Would make a change from assessing sole photographs that are expected to stand alone in judgement. -- Colin (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Background information to photographs are interesting, especially in technically challenging cases. Your idea to add narratives to photos is interesting. But I see problems with the language gap. Those people who are more familiar with the English language do have advantages with such nominations. Nonetheless I completely agree that background information to FP noms are valueable and should be added if possible. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose I mostly agree with Colin's perception. My first impresion here was a car and a palm, none of which are predominant but still tends to be in my eyes a (not featurable executed) commercial shot of a Nissan car. The fact that the surface of the sea is hidden by the car, and the elements on the left are also a minus to me. I would also add the the sharpness is just middle of the road (applies to both, the palm and the car). Summary: strange composition that doesn't work to me and is not overweighted by quality, sorry. Btw, I fully agree on the need of adding a description with the nomination. I have always done it and will always do because it adds value to the nomination and we all want to learn something there. Furthermore if there is no information we could miss something (intention of the photographer, cultural or historical value, etc.). Poco2 11:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment need a crop at bottom, IMO.--Claus (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sky too dark and it really looks better intended for a two-page magazine spread. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support We have far too little of such commercial photos here. --Ralf Roleček 11:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 17:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Nissan_Altima_at_Salton_Sea_2013.jpg&oldid=117765488"