Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Visitors of Musée du Louvre, Paris 7 June 2017.jpg

File:Visitors of Musée du Louvre, Paris 7 June 2017.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2018 at 08:25:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Visitors of Musée du Louvre, Paris 7 June 2017.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Visitors of Musée du Louvre, Paris 7 June 2017.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
•  Info created by Ralf Steinberger (Flickr) - uploaded & nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Neo-Narcissism exhibition at the Louvre. Pose is classic though. --cart-Talk 08:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm not seeing anything here that wows me. This could be anywhere in the world and there is no context in the shot. There are also chromatic aberration which is a strict no-go for me.--Peulle (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• "no context"? Except for the iconic shadow of the troublesome Louvre Pyramid. This photo has so many levels of context and commentary. --cart-Talk 12:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

You can get this kind of shadow pattern from anything with a grid shape.--Peulle (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

True, but you'd have to build that grid first. ;) A picture-Google doesn't turn up any grid shadows like the ones from the pyramid. --cart-Talk 16:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

And if you don't recognize the net-shadow, there is also the analogy of "two people caught by/surfing the net" or a commentary on a world where everyone is in their own little box instead of interacting or moving like pawns on a great surreal chess board and so on. If you look at this and only see some shadow lines with CA (now removed), you're not really looking at the photo.

Btw, I just looked at the source of the photo and the original title is: "e-Chess - Two mini-people on a large electronic playing field" so the author was thinking along those lines too. Now added to the description. --cart-Talk 17:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support per cart --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I get cart's point in theory, but the composition actually does very little for me when I look at it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose With just the man, it might be a good photo. But the woman is a negative. Am a bit tired of comments like " chromatic aberration which is a strict no-go" as if the faintest sub-pixel green tinge that one can only see at 100% 100dpi might suddenly make a great image into an awful one. We're promoting great pictures at FP, not great pixels. -- Colin (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)