Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Will Burgdorf Fotografie Selbstporträt.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Will Burgdorf Fotografie Selbstporträt.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2022 at 22:18:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1930-1940
Info created around 1930 by Will Burgdorf - uploaded by User:Bernd Schwabe in Hannover - nominated by Karl Oblique -- Karl Oblique (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Support -- Karl Oblique (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, This photo is absolutely tiny, way smaller than the bare minimum size of 2 megapixels. Since it's already a blur at its current size, please don't try enlarging it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)- Support Size doesn't always matter; also, there's no larger file of this image to be found on the web currently. Furthermore, I don't believe a larger file size is going to change the impression we're getting from this photo. – The photo is a great example of pictorialist style and I like it a lot. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Way too blurry and per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose -- COM:VIC might fit better. --A.Savin 10:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I think it's supposed to be blurry - with the size still no FP --Lupe (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. It is impressive but certainly not one of our very finest. What about the white edge on the left? --Kreuzschnabel 15:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Definitely too small, per Ikan, and with a weird white line at the left, as noticed by Kreuzschnabel -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment I also so see a problem in the white edge, but I also see a work of art here. The blur is definitely intentional and part of the composition - without it the picture would not have the Wow for me that it definitely has. I agree with Frank on most things and would support if the white edge can be fixed. --Kritzolina (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've found a slightly higher-resolution version, although I can't tell if it is of higher quality. Updated with the suggested crop. As a general note: I've shown this to a few people and something like 25 % are completely blown away by the optical illusion it creates while the rest looks at me as if they are worried for my mental health. So this may be somewhat similar to that golden or blue dress from a few years back. In any case, it was always obvious that it wasn't going to impress with its pixel count, and applying such criteria to art may be easy, but wrong. Karl Oblique (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's a pretty strict rule. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think we should talk about this rule for historical images of articstic value, but with the current version, we now have a white line at the bottom that would need to be cropped and a white spot in the upper right corner that should be easy enough to fix --Kritzolina (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's a pretty strict rule. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose A very interesting photo, educative and inspiring, but what we would feature here is a reproduction of that photo and to do this we need a reasonable reproduction, i.e. sufficient resolution and quality. The original is intentionally mostly out of focus, right, but I want to see this in the reproduction for sure and to study the gradation from sharp to unsharp etc., and therefore I need a certain resolution and quality. --Aristeas (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Just too small, even allowing for its artistic merit. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- FYI the new version has a big watermark across his chin. — Rhododendrites talk | 20:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
