Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panicum miliaceum Botanical Garden Zurich.jpg

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

File:Panicum miliaceum Botanical Garden Zurich.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2023 at 15:45:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
 Comment If you oppose, can you please stay respectful? "not comparable to the great plant pictures we've been featuring" is not the kind of comment which is appropriate for an online community as it discourages further involvement in the project. -- Ephramac (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ephramac: I disagree. Ikan has valid criteria for expressing his/her opinion on what should or should not be featured on Commons. And remember: constructive criticism helps to evolve (taking this from my own experience). ★ 11:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with people voicing contructive critisism (e.g. the photo being too unsharp), but saying that someone elses work is "not comparable" to other work can be perceived as very arrogant. Also keep in mind that in my case the feedback is unsolicited, as I did not ask for my photo being 'reviewed' here. I wish more people were aware of the fact that their behavior can make a difference in another persons day. Have a nice weekend! --Ephramac (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that landing at FPC can be a rather turbulent experience, and unfortunately you don't know all the rules and practices. The reason given for the 'oppose' was not a review. The guidelines say that you can 'support' a photo without giving any reason for it, but if you vote 'oppose' you must give a reason for it. The idea behind this practice is that you shouldn't be able to 'oppose' photos just because you don't like them, a valid reason must be given. It is also common that a photographer wants to know why the photo was opposed so that they might improve something for their next photo and nomination. Also, after reviewing thousands of photos over the years, the tone of many reviewers gets curt and harsh in short posts. It's a very hard school (lots of tears and drama!) but we also learn from each other that way. All the best, --Cart (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ephramac, when you nominate a photo for a possible feature as one of the very best photos on Commons, you are asking for people to judge your work. You can't expect people to avoid comment, even if it weren't for the fact that opposing votes have to be justified by comments per Featured Picture Candidates rules. And it's a little odd to accuse me of arrogance when I'm comparing photos to one another and don't have a personal stake in any of this. If you want to know more about the basis for my remarks, you should look at the current and recent nominations of plant photos that have gotten unanimous support, to see just how sharp they've been and what kind of contrast there is between the plant and the background. But stating that a photo is not (in my opinion) comparable to the very cream of the crop is not meant to be disrespectful; instead, it's a way to uphold very high standards that make the "Featured" designation meaningful. I am sorry, though, that my remarks were so painful for you. I had no intention of being mean, just clear. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not the one nominating this photo, but whatever. You do you... --Ephramac (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me. I nominate this picture, not him. The reason I nominate it here is the artistic of the picture. I'm also new to Wiki Commons. I've been on Vietnamese Wiki for a year, but I've just hoped in Commons recently. Maybe I should change the category. - ABAL1412🇻🇳🇸🇺🇷🇺 (talk ☭) 16:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ABAL1412 Thank you for nominating the picture I took. I appreciate it. Also, I did not mean to start a big discussion here. I just thought the tone was a little bit off and it would not hurt to mention it. --Ephramac (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm studying classical music, not art or photography. I know nothing about photography, but there's no rule that says I can't nominate. I put this pic here basically just because its artistic. Photography, for me, is also art. From my perspective, everyone who work in art should have their own thinking, their own style, not trying to be like everyone else. Otherwise, art is just a boring stuff. And you've just done that. Thank you for uploading your picture to Wikimedia. I truly love this one.

About the rules, there's a line that says "all rules can be broken". The featured picture has no category for artistic photo, so I have to put it in the Plants category. That breaks the rules, but this is a nice work of art, and I think it's a shame if it can't be an FP just because it's not like every other pictures.

Btw, having a big discussion on the nomination pages is super normal. It's OK.
- ABAL1412🇻🇳🇸🇺🇷🇺 (talk ☭) 17:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, for now artistic photos are kept in the same galleriers as the regular photos (perhaps they can inspire other photographers by being seen there), but if/when we get plenty of them, new galleries will be created. Some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ,6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, The site is always evolving. --Cart (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Ephramac, I see that you weren't the nominator. ABAL1412, I'm a professional musician with classical training. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ikan Kekek's subjective review is totally acceptable in my opinion. The criticism is related to the picture, not to the photographer. There are different ways to appreciate or non-appreciate an image, and I understand this particular point of view in the diversity -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Kinda weird light too. ★ 22:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Ikan Kekek --Tagooty (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This is a perfectly lovely and artistic photo displaying soft focus pastels. It's a shame that Commons FPC is so notorious for dismissing artistic photo styles that are valued in the rest of the world. Sure, the Wikipedias have plenty of articles about photo styles, but heavens forbid we should have FPs of them <sarcasm>. Unfortunately, if you nominate something outside the normal "National-Geographic-style" that is so dominant here, you have to prepare for battle. (Been there, done that, got the scars, gave up.)
That said, you were a bit unlucky with the light and shadow. You got the center of the plant in shadow, with two lit parts on either side. It would have been better if it was the other way around, --Cart (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the helpful feedback. As I am not a very experienced amateur photographer, there is of course a lot for me to learn. ;-) --Ephramac (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Honestly, this is one of those examples where artistic intent outweighs documentarian merit to me. This would not look out of place on a waiting room wall, or any of those other locations where one could reasonably expect a beautiful and non-controversial image to be hung for decoration. A big part of that is the brown background, which allows the buds in the rear to blend into it, creating a wistful impression. I like it; I've even tried to achieve it albeit less effectively.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I love the soft tones and the out-of-focus areas. For me, this image has a lot of artistic merit. I wish our photographic language here was more elaborated. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Chris/Frank — Rhododendrites talk |  14:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per avove. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The most interesting parts (sunny sides) are out of focus. Thus I don't think it would make a "non-controversial image to be hung for decoration". We often meet candidates with nice bokeh at FPC, like 1, 2, or 3. Unfortunately the tones here are not contrasted enough.
The shady side of the plant is too close to the background color. The subject awkwardly pops up. I would say this is more random than "artistic", even if that sounds harsh. The right part is a blurry mass. Narrow depth of field sometimes creates nice effects, but here the shade combination doesn't work. Camouflaged plant with distracting highlights -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--SHB2000 (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Panicum_miliaceum_Botanical_Garden_Zurich.jpg&oldid=798296044"