Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Religión en Isla Margarita, Valle del Espíritu Santo.jpg

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

File:Religión en Isla Margarita, Valle del Espíritu Santo.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2014 at 17:45:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Religión en Isla Margarita, Valle del Espíritu Santo
If you believe this section should raise the requirements, please feel free to propose it in the discussion page. Additionally, I will not bother if you give me one d810 (I'm kidding) --The Photographer (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to discuss the guidelines. But an image barely above our 2 mpix minimum has to be very special to get my support. This very picture, though not showing the best technical quality (noise, sharpness), conveys a very special mood and is unique in this way, that’s why I am still considering which side to lean to. Would be helpful if you'd try not to sound offended. --Kreuzschnabel 06:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel offended, I like the negative comments, especially when they help me become a better photographer, however, there are realities that can not change, for example, things that depend on the ability of the camera. I notice several of yours comments regarding the size of my nominations , that's the reason I think it is important that you propose a change requirements that are currently in 2mpx. It's always good to note not only the problem but a solution, I hope you can raise any alternative technique to improve the size. I sounded rude, that was not my intention, I appreciate your comments. --The Photographer (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kreuzschnabel that the resolution guideline is a (fairly) hard lower limit but each image must be judged for itself. Low resolution/sharpness and other technical weaknesses are balanced against artistic merits and each reviewer comes to their own conclusion. I prefer if reviewers have freedom to take resolution into account when judging, rather than for us to ignore resolution if >2mp. -- Colin (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak  Support Nicely lit and well framed. There's a triangle between the eye-lines of the figurine, the man and his hand placing the candle, which is excellent. The casual clothes of the man weakens the mood a little, though. However, I can't ignore the issues Kreuzschnabel notes. I suspect you had to crop heavily to achieve the framing presented here. I tried to search for similar images online, thinking this would be a popular subject and easily reproduced. But am disappointed with what I found. So on balance I think the excellent image wins (just) over the low resolution. (BTW, I don't think the image title is useful/helpful, and the page needs proper categories for the actual subject of the photograph -- currently it would be like me taking a photograph of my minister and calling it "Religion in Hertfordshire"). -- Colin (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Done Nice review, I added more categories. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak  Support It's the mood and composition which makes this image shine and I don't feel the need to zoom in, so I'm OK with the size. It's a bit noisy, but since it's no color noise that doesn't really bother me in this case. I agree with Colin about usefulness, though: At the very least I would expect a note on where it was taken. --El Grafo (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Done I added geolocation and a description more complete. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak  Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose In era of 40 Mpx, with 16 being avarage you could at least put some surplus pixel. --Mile (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mile, where are these 40Mpx cameras? Perhaps there are one or two people on Commons with a medium format camera. Averages are utterly meaningless -- one might as well say the average pixel colour at FP is green so why is this so yellow. One simply can't compare multi-megapixel stitched panoramas of buildings with a candle-lit portrait. I love fantasticly high resolution images as much as the next person here (and have uploaded some > 200MP) but they are a completely different kind of photography to this. There is far, far more to photography and art than MP or sharpness -- but gear-obsessed camera forums might give another impression. Many people here have cameras at 12 or 14 MP and it only takes a 50% crop to drop down to the size presented here. If I'm right that this has been cropped rather than downsized, then yes The Photographer could have zoomed more and composed the scene better in-camera. I don't disagree with your oppose for the low resolution offered here, but please your argument is not valid or fair. -- Colin (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think its time to raise 2Mpx limit, which was set long ago. Nothing personal, nor spceial, simply all went up, resolutions, screens, you can get now screenshot of 4K as photo suitable for FP "Photo" nominee. --Mile (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Mile I agree this is a fact, but we must consider that this is a global work(IMO) and we take into account that not everyone has access to cutting-edge equipment (here an equipment cost in real prices for a employed person are 4-6 times in other parts of the world!).We want only photographers who have advantages in cost and equipment acquisition will post photos here on Commons? Evaluate you how many publishers turn their photos into "featured" and distribute it geographically, both the source of editor and a location of the pictures ... it's impressive. Isn't a critical and there are other factors to consider but I think a bit of insight does not hurt. -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 13:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do think an oppose over size is reasonable decision here, just that Petar's arguments about 40MP cameras isn't quite reality. FYI, The Photographer's 12MP camera produces a 3MP image if cropped 50%. Someone with a 24MP camera gets 6MP after a 50% crop and someone with a 36MP D800 gets 9MP. There's a big cropping advantage to having the latest and most expensive kit. I do think that the days where we accept a < 5MP architecture or studio portrait at FP are probably numbered, if not already past. 5MP prints in high quality to A4. The very latest 5K displays are 14MP, but are a few years from being common. On en:wp FP, the limit is 1500px on the shortest side, which corresponds to about 3.4MP for a 3:2 image. I'd like to retain the option to accept low MP if the image has other compensating qualities, but wouldn't mind increasing the general threshold a bit, or having a higher threshold for some kinds of image. -- Colin (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like your equilibrium of argument Colin. About the above, on the other hand the quality of optical resolution of the sensors are inversely proportional to it, so this linearity is not correct(if I understand correctly, teach me if I'm wrong). For the same sharpness and an acceptable noise (especially in dark areas) in economic sensors (or entrance) the cut should be much higher for an acceptable result (not counting the lens set). But it is right to opposition vote. I am not opposed to the vote, just throw another viewpoint on the matter, I also like to have all the perfect images at high resolutions, but I try to have an overview of all aspects, vote and share my opinion. ; ) -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 17:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment D300 is a bit older but still very good camera, has 12 MPx. Not cheap, and still good priced as used. Looking just at photo, agree no need for bigger, no more aditional data to get from such. No need. If would be croped, no problem, it happens. But if downsizing becomes habbit for avoiding this and that, then it is not so good anymore. I am wondering, how would voting go if photo would be fullsized. Would it make difference ? On the other hand. Cropping by 50% still makes bigger than this size, and yet question, did you take good composition, did you know what to shot at ? Could be photo feautered if not knowing what would be on ?  Question to Wilfredo, is it croped or downsized ? --Mile (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a downsize, but I have no certainty of it that way, I've been looking for the raw file to upload to commonsarchive, however, I have the suspicion that I deleted it. I will try search this weekend again. We need a better RAW repository --The Photographer (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Wow! Great composition and well done, athmospheric photography in difficult lighting situation. -- Smial (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Nice image, but IMO too much noise.--XRay talk 16:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a strong suspicion the vast majority of re-uses of images on Commons are more than satisfied by the current size requirement. Printing images above A4 size can't be common. Moreover, if average screen res is a gauge (31% @ 1366x768) this might be useful: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_resolution_higher.asp in determining needs goign forward. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Getting slightly off-topic, but mobile and pad web browsing now exceeds desktop usage, and w3schools is most likely to be browsed on a PC at college or work, which tend to be low-cost displays. I'd say around Full-HD 1920x1080 is probably the most common display size purchased right now on any desktop and quality mobile devices, and 2048 x 1536 on current tablets. Which puts this image on the threshold of filling an Apple/Google tablet display. A Diliff multi megapixel cathedral, or Google Art painting is amazing because it can be explored, not just for what size it could conceivably be printed or displayed at -- which doesn't really apply to this image. I think the 1500px on the shortest side rule is a reasonable one for today for some kinds of image, but for other kinds it can encourage downsize-for-the-web. -- Colin (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Tilted to the left and a bit too noisy --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --JLPC (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /— revimsg 14:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Religión_en_Isla_Margarita,_Valle_del_Espíritu_Santo.jpg&oldid=148104816"