Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rostock asv2018-05 img75 Huetelmoor.jpg

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

File:Rostock asv2018-05 img75 Huetelmoor.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2018 at 13:10:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nature reserve "Heiligensee und Hütelmoor" in Rostock
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
  •  Info Scenery in nature reserve "Heiligensee und Hütelmoor" in Rostock/Germany ----- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 13:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --A.Savin 13:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose My very personal opinion: this picture was taken by the camera but not by the photographer. The file is very fine, camera did what it is supposed to do, but the eye of the photographer is absent: no subject, a disturbing cyan dominance everyhwre and not a single part where my eye can stop and observe something interesting. It is an empty frame in my opinion, but not a photography.Paolobon140 (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I don't like to comment votes, but this is by no means a fair feedback. --A.Savin 14:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Savin, if I am understanding well you are not satisfied with my review. First of all, please consider that while reviewing a picture I never look at the creator's name; I am not actually focused on whom took the picture, but on the picture itself only. I review the picture, not the photographer, whos photographic activity is unknown to me. On the other hand i consider and value "Featured pictures" a very serious matter: these pictures are supposed to represent the best efforts of the best photographers on Commons, and might be seen by thousands of viewers. This is the reason why i sometimes may sound stern in reviewing, but I was tought to judge my work and others' work strictly, I am the strictest judge to my own pictures and i expect the others to be as strict as I am when it comes to judge their own work. Consider, also, taht its not easy for me writing in a language which is not my language. You are saying my review is not fair. But i gave reasons and I explained my reasons: the picture is empty and without a subject, while photography should find a subject to photograph; colours are dominated by cyan; I dfind nothing in the pic to stop and watch; i concluded it looks to me like an empty frame where the content is missing. I might add that the composition looks to me unbalanced: the right part is busy with different kinds of vegetation, the left part is empty. And this is not a kind of "negative space" you chose to apply: it is an unbalanced composition. That vegetation in the foreground is not a subject, it is a disturb as it is not something pleasant to see becasue of shape and colour. That half tree on the right border is a half tree and it even doesnt have a pleasant shape and adds an even more unbalanced look to the whole composition. Those tussocks in the very foreground look untidy and not interesting in their pale green colour. There is no subject: a house, an animal, a special tree, whatever. This is what I see and that is the reason why i said that this is a picture taken by a camera and the photographer is absent. You might take it as a personal offense, but I am sure that you might even agree with what im noticing. Well, this is my very eprsonal opinion, of course, but I am now curious to know what you find so appealing in this picture to be considered as a Featured picture. You might review your own photo and show me things i didnt notice, if you agree.Paolobon140 (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's "an empty frame [...] but not a photography", it falls outside COM:SCOPE and you should nominate it for deletion. --A.Savin 17:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, again i have explained while I find it an empty frame, Savin, do you find this photo a good photo? Ok, good for you, compliments for your good photo. I am here to review pictures, not to sophisticate.Paolobon140 (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My compliments as well, probably you have managed to take a much better picture of the same spot. But really? Not even my username you are able to write correctly. Well, OK. EOD --A.Savin 17:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A.Savin, I don't understand your anger: in that same session you took much better photos (IMO), like this one: File:Rostock asv2018-05 img76 Huetelmoor.jpg which, you must agree, is 10 times better than the one you presented here. It is a much better and balanced composition, even if, still, there is a kind of ugly bush on the very right side of the image which ruins the general look of the pic. I may suggest you to choose your FP with more attention; in my opinion the one you presented here is not the best among the ones you have shot in that place. Paolobon140 (talk) 08:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the picture you linked has a better composition than this one, and I would probably support an FPC nomination for that one, but I can clearly understand why some people get peeved at you: It's your tone and choice of words. The thing is, I'm glad you've come to FPC, because you have a different point of view, and that's positive, even if many of us find you abrasive and maybe a bit arrogant. So while perhaps you could try to temper the bluntness of your language a bit (realizing that English is not your first language, e s'io dovressi [? my guess at a congionctivo without Google Translate] scrivere sempre in italiano, bisogna molto tempo e dubbio che lo farei meglio che il tuo inglese), I'd rather have you continue to participate than leave. But I think it's harder to accept really negative criticisms like "there's no composition" ("I don't perceive a composition" would be a little softer) when it's your photo than when someone is nominating someone else's photo. Anyway, as we say here, just my 2 cents. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of the problem is that some of your arguments don't stack up. Wrt subject, the subject is the wetlands. True there is no single dominant object in the frame, but that in itself isn't a reason to dislike a photo as there are plenty excellent photos that have no dominant object. The frame is far from empty. As for the cyan, well that and the no-dominant-object criticism also apply to the alternative you suggested. There is a difference in composition and one can argue the merits for sure. I think you were a bit insulting to suggest that there was no human input into this photo at all, and that this was so bad as to not even qualify as "photography". Can ask that you not address Alexander by his surname alone, as he finds this rude. Perhaps there are cultural differences here. Could you fix your text to say "A.Savin" (which his image attribution suggest is how to refer to him here) or "Alexander" if you are feeling friendly (which is on his user page). -- Colin (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination Thanks to all who commented constructively. --A.Savin 13:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Rostock_asv2018-05_img75_Huetelmoor.jpg&oldid=329878118"