Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pinus palustris bark 30 NBG LR.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Pinus palustris bark 30 NBG LR.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2017 at 22:46:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Pinales
- Pinus palustris (Longleaf pine) bark. All by me. -- PumpkinSky talk 22:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry PumpkinSky, but I am not "wowed by something I saw everyday in Boston. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 04:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Comment @Kong of Lasers: Fair enough, but the reason I like this so much is pretty much in line with what Ikan Kekek and HalfGig have said. It's really hard to get a DOF this deep when doing macros because the DOF at close ranges is razor thin. PumpkinSky talk 13:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- I Support this one. The form is great, like a sculptor who creates a great bas relief with found objects. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but as I hinted last time, I'm bored already. And the rather harsh lighting isn't pleasing to my eye. It's a random piece of bark, no different to the bark 5cm further up the tree or 5cm further down, or to the left or right, or to the next tree, and so on. So for me just an example of texture in nature and close-up photography. So personally I'd be off trying to take a close-up photo of something different rather than another bark.
- Also, the JPG is in "ProPhotoRGB" colourspace. Never use this for JPG. Nobody has a "ProPhotoRGB" monitor to see it on, and in fact nobody has ProPhotoRGB eyes as the colourspace includes many colours that are theoretically/mathematical rather than physically possible. The 8-bit colour of a JPG can't handle ProPhotoRGB with fidelity. It is intended as an intermediate working colour-space for doing colour manipulation in Photoshop on 16-bit TIFF files. You should use sRGB for internet JPGs. Also, unless you own a wide-gamut monitor, and have setup your software and operating system and monitor settings to take advantage of it, I'd strongly recommend using sRGB for the intermediate files too, as many software tools ignore or strip out colourspace details, running the risk that you end up with the wrong colours. -- Colin (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support Taking Colin's point about the colorspace (where does it say this, though? All I see in the metadata is "uncalibrated"), I still like the texture and depth. Daniel Case (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality is really good but it lacks something special to me in order to consider it one of our finest, sorry Poco2 18:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose If you will nominate all your bark pictures it is very hard to pick out the best one. I'm afraid that's not very exciting.--Ermell (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Question @Ermell: For one thing, this is a different species. So by using the same logic as you we shouldn't be able to have multiple FPs of those moth and butterfly photos that are all shot and/or mounted the same way, we shouldn't have a FP of a Mercedes E-class if we have an FP of a Mercedes C-class (or whatever make of car), if we have an FP of one Medieval German church we can't have an FP of another one, etc etc usw usw. Because this is basically what you're saying. We even have FPs of the same species and these two bark photos are not the same species and a totally different motif. Your oppose rationale is nothing but a hypocritical double-standard and as far as I'm concerned it is not a valid rational. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander but here it clearly isn't. These double standard rationals at FPC need to stop here and now. So which German church FPs are you going to put up for delisting since by your logic we should only have one German church FP, one moth\butterfly FP shot and mounted the same, one bark photo regardless of the species, one flower photo regardless of species, etc? Maybe I'll start opposing all the German church and mountain FPs because I'm bored with them and don't feel like picking out the best one. PumpkinSky talk 21:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment@PumpkinSky: I'm sorry if the picture didn't immediately show that this is a different species. It is in the nature of things that it is more difficult to depict tree bark in an interesting way than churches, which do not necessarily have to be German. To be precise, I just don't find this picture interesting enough for FP. You should not react so irritated to justified criticism just try to improve your pictures here is where it worked.--Ermell (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment@Ermell: Then that's what you should have said, not say we can we can only have one bark photo, period, of any kind. This was not justified criticism, it was a cop out on your part. This is clearly labled Pinus palustris not Pinus taeda, if you'd looked. Have you ever opposed because there's already a flower photo? I doubt it. I've seen this many times, different rules for different photos or whatever. We can have multiple photos of a bird species but only one of bark? What sense does that make? None. I'm done with the double standards, hypocrisy, and other things I have seen here. I'm done with Commons. PumpkinSky talk 22:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination PumpkinSky talk 22:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
