Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stefano Tofanelli Family.jpg

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

File:Stefano Tofanelli Family.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 07:37:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stefano Tofanelli Family
BTW, FP size requeriment is 2 MP, about color saturation and WB is another problem --The Photographer (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that, and if you can find a 2MP painting that has passed PF in the last several years, I'd be amazed. That it is 9MP isn't a fail, but it isn't anything in it's merit either. -- Colin (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Currently there are established requirements, I agree that the picture is taken at the highest possible resolution of the camera, however, you can not demand a higher size for a camera that can not do that, because you're forced to buy new cameras and that's money. Size is important, however, is not everything. I can show you a big quantity 6 MB painting already FP and yes you could use another personal requeriment, however, IMHO epithets arguments should not exceed the FP requeriments pre-established. I respect your opinion, however, it is your opinion and when you use "we" in your arguments is a clear lack of consideration for those who not think the same way. --The Photographer (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have misunderstood my point about the size. As I said in my reply above, the 9MP comment isn't a reason for my oppose, but isn't something to get excited about either -- it isn't going to be the thing that helps an otherwise average image become stellar. You know that judging is a balance of good and bad aspects, and the resolution here is "meh". You are well aware that we have many many very high resolution images of paintings, taken professionally, with hopefully professional standards of colour/brightness accuracy. Our amateur efforts have to compete with that, because that's what "finest" means. The only "we" in my comment is about this forum not featuring all paintings on Commons, so "we" isn't absolutely correct and "I" would be inappropriate. Of course it is only my opinion, and I would appreciate you striking out the nasty comment about "clear lack of consideration for those who not think the same way". The 2MP is not a "requirement" in the sense that once passed then no complaints can be made about resolution, and I'm surprised that someone here for as long as you choose to argue about that because you know full well it doesn't and never has worked that way. It's a lower limit to give nominators a clear idea of what is likely to generate an FPX. That's all. I don't "demand a higher size". Please don't put words in my mouth. If this image had accurate colours, was noise-free, was sharp and the artwork passed our criteria for FP (which this doesn't) then I wouldn't have opposed. Anyway, the camera used is 6000x4000 and this image is 3400x2665 so this is only 60% size and not even sharp. -- Colin (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is your minimum image size recomendation/requeriment. ? --The Photographer (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule "If an image is X MP then that is acceptable for FP" and nor should there be. So I don't have a minimum. And please, I have now for the third time had to state that the 9MP is not a reason for my oppose. Can we take this somewhere else, as it is irrelevant to this image. -- Colin (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the nominator show his RAW file we could imagine the "original colors". --The Photographer (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A raw file is not calibrated neutral either. It contains no information about the colour temperature of the lighting -- this must either be guessed by the software/camera or set by the user using their own judgement. It also contains no information about the correct brightness and contrast, so the image may be under-exposed for example. The only way to be sure is to use ColorChecker and ideally to have control over the lighting, which is what professionals do. Failing that, we can use other copies of the image as a reference. -- Colin (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I generally use a rudimentary ColorChecker Passport created by myself, however, it will be a photographer interpretation or camera representation based on internal algorithm of revelation, printer settings, camera LCD configuration, PC monitor setting and quality....A person who lived his entire life in the Caribbean may have less sensitivity to light than another person from certain Scandinavian countries. Some populations of completely separate cultures, and unrelated, living in high relief, such as Nepal and Bolivia, using live similar colors in their daily attire. --The Photographer (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Colors seem off to me ... honestly, I never thought I'd be faulting a painting for CA (look at the main subject's nose) and while I was going to wait to see if this was the way it was, I couldn't find too many other versions online to compare. I was going to go with a neutral, but per the concerns of Colin and Kreuzschnabel above I don't think I need to defer. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination it's only a pic....--LivioAndronico (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Stefano_Tofanelli_Family.jpg&oldid=198036035"