Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sedov (ship, 1921), Sète, Hérault 07.jpg

File:Sedov (ship, 1921), Sète, Hérault 07.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2014 at 04:51:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Sedov (ship, 1921), Sète, Hérault 07.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sedov (ship, 1921), Sète, Hérault 07.jpg

•  Info created & uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks for this nomination Paris 16, I've just uploaded a bigger file not downsampled. For those who will ask, I am the first one disappointed of that but not I have no photo with the boat under veil completely in the sun. And in spite of my good camera I have no bigger photo because even with the 200mm the boat did not occupy all the photo and I cropped a big part of the sea. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice. I actually prefer this elevated viewpoint over more "dramatic" ones from other boats. --DXR (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Poco² 08:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Maybe irreal blue, but this is too beautiful --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Kadellar (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --JLPC (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Joydeep _Talk 07:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --ArildV (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Main part of ship in shadow. --Kikos (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose The level of support here might make one think nobody had seen a tall ship before, let alone looked on Commons to see if this among our finest photographs. Is this a rebound-effect from the recent nomination? Well whatever is going on, it doesn't stand scrutiny when examined against our criteria and body of work.

• Framing. The ship is too far to the right in the picture and the top third blue/grey sky isn't helping to interest the viewer. Let's try a 21:9 crop rather than the 16:10 here:

21:9 crop

I'd prefer a bit more room above the mast but I think this is an improvement.

• Detail and colour. The ship was quite some distance from the photographer and a longer lens (or crop-format camera) would have helped with reach but not with clarity. Let's compare with another photograph of this ship:

Sedov, Gdynia, 20090705, 3

Since the above looks a little soft at 100%, here's a link I've resized so the ship is the same height as the nomination at 100%. (The ships appear different widths because of the angle of view). The contrast, sharpness and clarity in the above picture is just many orders of magnitude better. One can make out the ring round the portholes. But compare also the colours. In the nomination, the vibrance knob in Lightroom was cranked up to +62 (it has a remarkable ability to cut through haze and restore a little contrast/colour, but with some side effects). But it can't work miracles and the result for the ship is like an underexposed picture whereas the sea ends up too blue. In the above picture, fully lit by sun, the brown colours of the mast and woodwork are clear and faithful, and the dark paint contrasts with the white. In the nomination, we have it lit by two colour temperatures: warm sunlight at the very front and cold blue shade for the rest. The leading mast looks almost pink and the paintwork washed out.

• Presentation The nomination has the ship's sails unfurled, which is good. I like the shadow of the sails on the sails behind -- that's a nice effect. But overall the ship is too much in shadow. The above photo isn't as fully unfurled. However it appears to have been taken by a photographer in a boat circling the ship. So we can have a look at the other side (from 45 mins earlier and even closer):

Sedov, Gdynia, 20090705, 1

Which makes a pair with strong EV in addition to technical superiority -- a possible Featured Picture Set? -- Colin (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment I prefer the 21:9 crop indeed. The upper third with the grey sky makes the composition somewhat boring for me. --A.Savin 07:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

  Of course Alexander, if you want to see the 21:9 cropped version promoted, you can propose it as an alternative (or/and oppose this one), this version is not my taste however I will respect that. But I would be grateful to you and to the others for not putting previews of all the photos of categories. Because if all of us we add 3 differents prewiew at all the nominations, where are we go? where is the limit? 1,2,3...10 prewiews? You can oppose by being very strict and severe however the voluntary disturbances of this page are to be banished IMO. --Christian Ferrer 11:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Christain, instead of viewing Colin's efforts as strict and severe you could have taken them as well considered constructive criticism. Perhaps if more people did this we would't have a 75% failure rate at COM:FPC. If 75% of the nominations are failing it is because photgraphers are not self-curating and/or ignoring the guidelines. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Needs a little crop at left IMO, but I like the shadows of the veils very much.--Jebulon (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment For clarity: I removed the previews by converting the to links when I read the concern by the author on A.Savin's talk. I did it as a long time (not so) participant here, to avoid the friction I'm seeing here nowadays. It doesn't meant I support any side. My opinion:

I had removed off topic previews earlier, as it affect the nomination. But here they are on topic. But still I prefer links than a preview as far as they are alternative candidates.

I see now A.Savin prefer an alt. But adding alts at this stage is not very helpful counting the supports.

My best suggestion: I see many times other nominating works of active participants here. IMHO, it is not good. Give the author enough time to select his preferred one or discuss it with him prior to the nomination. (Nomination of works of JJH or Yathin is a different case as they are not very active here.) Otherwise we will end up featuring not the best which is not our purpose here.

I've "no comment" about this nomination as this is not my area of expertise.

I wish more friendlier environment here than nowadays. It doesn't mean everybody support all nominations. Be truthful to your reviews. Authors should be more tolerant to positive criticisms. Hope you all understand what I mean. Jee 11:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Everyone knows that alternative nominations are done using a subheading, that they are usually only done by the nominator, and they would typically have a support vote after them otherwise what would be the point. If Christian felt my comments/images were confusing, he could have asked me and I'd have clarified, or possibly turned them into links myself. Could we all please allow editors a chance to improve/fix their own edits rather running off to some admin accusing them of sabotage. As for nominating others' works: I think it polite to ask the photographer first (with the obvious exception for those photographers who don't frequent Commons). -- Colin (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me if I were wrong. I took the freedom here as I know both of you and consider as friends. As I said earlier, I didn't part with any side in this case. Just trying for FP's good. :) Jee 12:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you did nothing wrong -- your edit was in good faith. -- Colin (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose -- I use high end hardware calibrated monitors and when I look at Christian images I always get the sense the colour is off. This is the case here too. However, that is not the root of the oppose. I just don't think an image of a zoomed in, heavily cropped tall ship in questionable light represents the finest we can expect for such works. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- can follow Colins arguments Arcalino (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --P e z i (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose the composition doesn't works for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• I'm rather satisfied. Thanks to you I finally discovered something on me, I think Colin is right on the fact I'm intolerant, I have just seen that. I think that he tried to tell it to me several time. And I am also satisfied to learn that I've just to ask to him to not put previews on the nominations page : ok : please don't do it again (links:ok, previews: not ok). I was intolerant in the right to talk(vote, comment) of others : yes, but if you think that I am going to listen to you on the choice on the nominations you're wrong. I don't care about your 75% or of any percentages. For me more nominations=more participants=more votes=more representative of the finest. And in more my nominations and all the connectred discussions make me learn I was intolerant = I was right to insist; of course. I am going to continue; no doubt. Really, thank you very much. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This whole preview/link thing is overblown and just your own, as you say, intolerance, and seeing bad motives where there was none. I'm not persuaded at all that they caused any real problem, and shall decided for myself in future whether they help my reviews rather than be bossed about by you. You don't own this page and this isn't even your nomination. -- Colin (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Christian, more nominations does not = more finest. Quality, not quantity, is what counts when it comes to selecting nominations and selecting winners. If this forum stops representing highest-quality images then some of our photographers will simply leave. There has to be a point where the award "finest on Commons" actually means something. And if all it takes to achieve FP is a bunch of "like" votes from one's friends, then proper critical reviewing will also stop. And those who actually want to learn from the comments and advice of others in order to improve, they will also leave. The uncritical support votes at the start of this nomination represent FP failing at its job. "Oh look, Christian's taken a picture of a pretty ship rather than some dull scrub land". Never mind we have better photographs of the very same ship. Never mind it is so murky that it shouldn't even pass QI. *sigh*. -- Colin (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  I understood nothing but it must certainly be true, thank you. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  Noone is asking you to stop participating. Some are concerned that images are getting a pass at COM FPC that shouldn't. This is a good example because technically it is very deficient. Almost every light and colour setting has been manipulated to the extreme (see EXIF) such that you have people saying the water colour is "irreal". Frankly I find all the colours are incorrect. Sorry Christain, this is not a good picture by any objective standard and it is certainly not one of the finest on Commons. Yet we have this situation where all these people are supporting it. So the question becomes why are they supporting... do they want to lower standards here? Do they honestly belive this is the finest? Are they feeling sorry that so many of your images fail here? I don't actually know what percentage of your images pass here. I am of the opinion, unless 80%+ of my nominations pass, I am doing something wrong and not meeting the expectations of the project. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  I'm busy and I've not the time to answer in english sorry. Je n'ai pas nominé cette photo, qu'est que tu veux? que je withdraw? qu'est que tu fais des autres votes? il semble que bien qu'imparfaite, elle plaise. Dans cette page tu supporte une image qui est IMO bien moins réussi techniquement que celle-ci, pourquoi tu la supporte? peut-etre elle a quelquechose de spécial, (pas besoin de m'expliquer ce que tu lui trouve, je respecte ton opinion de toutes façon). On en vient donc à pourquoi j'ai tous ces supports?, peut etre que certains y voit quelque chose qui leur plait, et peut etre qu'il y a aussi des votes de sympathie, c'est tout à fait juste. Mais je n'ai rien demandé et si (Colin en tete depuis des semaines et des mois!!) vous arretiez d'attirer l'attention sur moi, j'en aurais surement moins des votes de sympathie. Et tu sais quoi : Je ne demande que çà! Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  I won't pretend to understand half of what is written here, but I do accept this was not Christian's nomination. However, File:Kruzenshtern (ship, 1926), Sète, Hérault 01.jpg was you are gaining from a rebound effect. I don't know of any other FP-regular who refuses to select their finest works, but instead over-nominates QI-level material on a constant basis, with the effect that we get weird results like this one. It really isn't fair on the Commoners who select their finest yet still end up getting a hard time over the slightest CA or noise or sharpness at 100% or some other triviality. I'm quite certain that if this image was some random Flickr picture that a newbie nominated, most of those supporting above would have torn it to shreds with glee. This, together with allegations of sabotage make this candidacy reflect very poorly on the community. -- Colin (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  I think some of you are going somewhat too far with your statements here. You can argue that the not very accurate representation of the colors (which is certainly far more difficult to achieve from a mountain than from another boat) should have kept me from supporting in hindsight, but effectively implying that supporters only supported out of mercy or out of incompetence is not fair and also not correct, imo. I genuinely like the image and as mentioned, I find the perspective from an elevated viewpoint more interesting and less usual than the perspective chosen in Colin's examples. --DXR (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  DXR your early support comment was more considered than most. And in any picture one will have a spread of opinion and not all of us will ever agree (which is good and wonderful). I don't expect many/any people to change their minds because we are all too defensive by nature. All of us must decide whether the good points outweigh the bad. And on that measure I'd expect this picture to be a much closer call than it is. What we see here is simply an uncritical pile-on of support. And I cannot understand any reason to support the previous dreadful nomination that reflects well on those who did so. So I think there's an unconscious rebound effect going on here, which will continue to benefit the strategy of nominating bad, bad, mediocre, bad, bad, mediocre. I find myself wanting to find a reason to support Christian's pictures because of so many opposes and so many failures. But then catch myself because I should be judging the picture and that alone. You say you "genuinely like the image" and it is a fine ship to regard. But "like" is for Flickr and Facebook. -- Colin (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  ... and that is exactly why images of tallships I have taken have stayed on Flickr. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  Well, you could just swap "like" with "wow", in that case, but of course many points you mention do make sense. But that is basically due to the fundamentally flawed FPC voting process. The main reason for my comment was that I just think that all sides here should try to make an effort not to get too obsessed with their respective opinions of what is right and wrong, here and on some talk pages, since this really has been a recurring theme for weeks now. --DXR (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Colin, you said I've to ask you if I want something, ok. Saffron Blaze, Colin, You said your points of view, so please now I ask you to not add comment for now. And for the others (who have supported) : Paris 16, Yann, DXR,Uoaei1, Poco, Martin Falbisoner, Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H., AK, JLPC, Michael Barera, Joydeep, ArildV, Jebulon, P e z i, it is suggered by Saffron that many of you have supported because you are feeling sorry that so many of my images fail here, ok if you did a vote like that its nice from you but I don't want a thing like that, so please I ask you sincerely if you did that, don't do it again for my future nominations and also for all because it deserve the project and here we search the finest. And if you really supported my image as the finest, I'm happy if you like my image. You're all free to add comments after that but my comment don't need answers. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  And of course you can remove you support if you can follow Colin's arguments, it is not a problem and even I ask you for that. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  • What's that ? I read this discussion very carefully, but I don't want to be involved more than my vote. I'm not a schoolboy. I've supported (furthermore, with explanations!). I still have no reasons to change my vote. Period.--Jebulon (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

    • Christian, I really love this photograph and believe that it deserves to be a featured picture. My vote certainly wasn't a pity vote. While I think that some of your nominations are more along the lines of quality images than featured pictures, I won't ever hesitate to vote for your photographs if I believe they deserve FP status. And, to reiterate, I really believe that this image should be featured. Thanks for taking it, uploading it, and nominating it here. Take care! Michael Barera (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Michael Barera, I've a complaint about your voting style. You seem to be visiting the FPC page once in every week (mostly on Sundays) and add a support to almost all nominations within few minutes. I can see more than vote within a minute. May be you pre reviews all images and adding votes altogether. Otherwise, I think it is not helpful to our process. Many of those nominations should have speedy closed per 5 day rule if you didn't do so. Just a fair criticism. :) Jee 06:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't want to join this overboiling discussion. Just a comment to my vote: I love windjammer and this picture has wow even in the preview size. The only modification I'd like to suggest is cropping a part of the sky. --P e z i (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Christian Ferrer, I know you've asked me not to comment but what you have done here is to ask only one question when there are a multitude of possible reasons why the pile-on of uncritical support occurred. And the question you asked is least likely to be admitted to. If "feeling sorry for you" had any influence on voting patterns here it is likely to be subconscious and only only aspect of voting failure. Nobody is going to respond "Yes, Christian, I voted support simply because I am sorry your last ship photo failed, and also because I knew it would annoy Colin". Anyone doing so would be asked to leave the forum. You've pinged a lot of folk to look at this discussion, which is probably a good thing if they haven't already. Please, folks, read from the top, look at the links I gave to that other photo of the same ship. Compare the contrast, colours, detail. Consider if you'd have supported any other subject that was so much in shadow, so unfaithfully coloured, and so murky from the distance. But really, I wouldn't expect anyone here to respond other than utterly defensively. I know I would. So a pile-on of responses like Michael's above tells us nothing. Please let's just close this discussion with agreement between me and Christian that we should all be trying to select the "finest", and not just going "like". -- Colin (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

When we see that there are several supporters of this nomination who are normally well-known for their critical, objective and careful FPC reviews, this picture perhaps indeed isn't as far from our FP standards as you have claimed all the time. --A.Savin 08:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• A.Savin, that is a valid point. It is because you and others are highly credible reviewers that annomalies like this vote draw so much attention. Particulaly since this is not the first time we have seen a result like this lately. I don't expect everyone to vote with a single hive mind mentality, but I honestly believe that things are changing here and that those changes are not in line with this project's mandate or long standing ideals. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A.Savin's point is essentially peer pressure and an appeal to authority, which is one explanation for the long unbroken run of supports. Peer pressure is generally considered a bad thing, being responsible for a run on the banks, stock market crashes and the popularity of "drop crotch pants [trousers]". I'd prefer to be swayed by quality of argument rather than quantity. And ultimately prefer for everyone to make up their own minds rather than go along with others, no matter what their track-record. But consider this: the first critical comment, expressing disappointment, noting the ship was in shadow, and that the photographer was too far away from the subject, was not made by me. I'm quite persuaded by that argument of Christian's, even though (understandably) he still supported. -- Colin (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand that there is a frustration from primary two users towards Christian (based on how he nominates images here). I understand if Christian gets frustrated that the same criticism is repeated again and again in different nominations and discussion pages.

(I once wrote about why the third reply causes many conflicts on Wikipedia. User A writes some critical observations to user B. User B read the message, understand, but responds a little defensive. User A have two choices here; either let user B think about it and choose how he will act in the future or write the third reply. In the third reply repeat user A the same thing, just a little more aggressive and irritated. And user B reply more aggressive and irritated. And here we go...)

I am concerned that the conflict is escalating here. Innocent civilians like I myself (which only in good faith carefully review images) are being drawn into the conflict. The conflict is based upon various assumptions, assumption that characterize participants' views of each other and the conflict. Very few people outside the conflict share the assumptions.

I would please ask you to be more careful while making negative assumptions about each other (but also about the rest of us).--ArildV (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally I agree with ArildV. Cast the vote and run away; never ever visit that page even somebody pinged you. Same applicable to the nominator too. Make a nom; go away, and come back after 9 days to see the result. :) Jee 09:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This section has devolved to "Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer". Please everyone, if you've come here to defend your vote, don't waste your time. If you are interested at all in why this is a waste of time, see the comment I made on ArildV's talk page. It is long past time to move on. -- Colin (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you not to "vote and run away" but just run away. Go away and don't come back after 9 days. This project has very little to do with photography, the voting is very political. The only way to improve the situation is to include more reviewers. Colin and Saffron are playing god here right now. They seem to know when people are objective and when they are confused. In my opinion the only reason why their comments are stronger and dominate over this project is that they are native speakers. Their fluent and rich language is impressive indeed. This however does not add any weight to their opinion. Don't be fooled. They have also just one vote, just like you. You are all equal here. Now you can make fun of my mistakes... --146.255.183.19 11:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• If my photos make debate fortunately that I does not write books (Or maybe I should and make a fortune). -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support .--M49314 (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wolf im Wald 11:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Sorry all, I supported by reflex when I saw my name, but it is not featured IMO, and in more, I'm very busy and I have not edit all the photos of this ship, maybe I have one witch is better. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)