Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:RPM abstract at night.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:RPM abstract at night.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:07:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles (maybe there is a better category)
Info All by WClarke -- WClarke 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Support I've been back at it trying more abstract photography, and have been evolving more in the previous weeks, including off of what I nominated last week. I this photograph I tried to make my subject more recognizable, while still bringing abstract elements into the photograph through the blur and distortion. As with my other photograph I nominated, this may see opposition, though thought it was worth sharing. Thanks. -- WClarke 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)- Support It works for me. It looks like a still from a time travelling movie. Exciting, ratteling, blurred. (And I feel bad opposing abstracts, I feel some have a place as FP) – LucasT 21:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Question sorry but to me its only a unsharp picture? --Ralf Roleček 21:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ralf Roleček: Maybe it's not for everyone; it is experimental. The blur and distortion is for artistic and aesthetic effect, and I still think at the very least it is interesting to look at. I'm trying to explore something beyond what I've done before, and personally think I'm starting to get some interesting results. And though I respect your opinion, similar arguments ("it's only..." or "it's just a...") have been made for a long time against more abstract and conceptual art. Thanks. WClarke 22:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support ok, why not? --Ralf Roleček 07:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support It becomes an abstract art photo if it somehow stimulates your fantasy. This is clearly telling me: "Houston, we have a problem." --cart-Talk 22:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support Nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support Per Cart! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - Sorry, like Ralf, I just find this a blurred figurative photo, not something I really consider an abstraction. Also, the feelings that it gives me are eye strain and wanting to yell "Get out of the car! You're drunk!" Perhaps for a movie, this could be a useful blurring for a drunk driving scene, but for abstract photography, I want to see non-figurative shapes and lines. [shrug] That could be my assumptions and limitations speaking, but you could also call it something else: My personal taste. So I salute the fact of experimentation, but not this result. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- That is kind of the two places I've been stuck between: making it appear abstract enough to pass off a as abstract photography, while at the same time making sure it doesn't appear random or boring. Thanks. WClarke 15:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. The drunk driving thing was one of my first thoughts... I've never done such a horrible thing myself of course...
lNeverCry 08:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC) - Oppose not for me. Charles (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support This might not be a good sharp image (don't think it was even planned as one) but it is giving an old sci-fi film feel. I personally liked it. --SumantaJoarder (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose might be a good photo, but not a FP for me. -- -donald- (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose A good photo for what it's trying to do, but I don't see it as being in scope. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. --Karelj (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
