Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Icebergs cape york 1.JPG

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

Icebergs at Cape York 4x3 crop, different black and grey levels

[edit]
  •  Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Walter Siegmund --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info This is a dramatic image of an interesting and unique subject in a very remote area (the coast of Greenland). It was taken from a helicopter. That may have contributed to what I think are minor technical flaws, e.g., some peripheral blur, but it is the only way this image could have been obtained. Some highlights may be overexposed (or have too much contrast enhancement applied), but detail is visible on the icebergs at the center of the image even on the brightest surfaces.
  •  Support --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support as the creator. That picture surely has some technical issues, but a small, shaky helicopter is not exactly the right place to take quality pictures. Still that picture shows not only icebergs, but also glaciers, from which the icebergs were calving, and in my opinion has some encyclopedic value.--Mbz1 18:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  SupportI just like it, not so good quality, but it's ok--AdrF 22:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I really wanted to support this, despite its technical issues, for the effort that has obviously gone into taking this picture. But on second look, the composition itself (above all: big shadowy rock from the left) finally didn't convince me. Don't want to spoil your voting, tho. Kudos for this picture. --Digitaldreamer 01:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ack Digitaldreamer --Makro Freak 01:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Snowwayout 03:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral A question: Are we voting about the circumstances or about the picture?--Szilas 14:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guidelines include the criteria below. They include criteria for judging the technical quality of the picture as well. Both the difficulty of the subject and technical quality are important and should be considered when evaluating an image. I hope this is helpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "For Featured Pictures, a technically ordinary picture of an extraordinary subject can be perceived as a better picture than a technically excellent picture of an ordinary subject." Commons:Image guidelines
      • "Symbolic meaning or relevance…. A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." Commons:Featured picture candidates
  •  Neutral Technical quality and that black rock in the lower right corner. --Digon3 talk 15:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, the technical quality is too low due to blur and/or shallow DoF. The ISO is too low for this type of shot or a stabilized lens could have been used. I've taken and seen a number of shots from moving objects at this shutter speed and aperture with much better results, even from the air. Icebergs look good like sunsets, so I don't buy the idea that it's extra special. -- Ram-Man 23:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I understood what is common between icebergs and sunsets,but please don't try to explain your very thoughtful conclusion because I'm afraid it will make the things only more confusing.--Mbz1 23:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
    • As nearly as I can determine, this is the only aerial view of a group of icebergs along with source glaciers on Commons (please see Category:Icebergs and Iceberg). I found very few aerial views of iceberg groups and one of those was contributed by Mbz1. Ship or land-based images generally don't depict iceberg groups well or their relationship to source glaciers. Iceberg spawning from the continental glaciers of Antarctica and Greenland is important since it is a process that could lead to catastrophic sea level rise over the next few centuries. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not enough mitigation to balance the very poor focus. I've taken many photos that represent the only one of their kind on the Internet (e.g. (Image:Acanthochondria cornuta.jpg), Image:Diastylis laevis.jpg, Image:Hibiscus rhodanthus.jpg,..., but that doesn't mean they all should be FPs. It doesn't degrade the value of the picture, it just is not good enough for FP. Lycaon 06:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how you possibly could compare my image with your images. (Of course after Ram-Man compared icebergs with sunsets nothing could surprise me any more). Your images are unique and special and I'd say they are so special that only very few people, maybe even very few scientists could be interested in them. On the other hand my image while still unique and special represents much broader interest for general population.--Mbz1 10:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose As per Lycaon --Makro Freak 08:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you like to vote as Lycaon does, I really believe you should oppose the picture on the right too(after all Lycaon did), just to be consistent you know--10:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  •  Oppose I don't think an interesting subject and difficult shooting situation alone are enough to mitigate so-so composition and quality --MichaD | Michael Apel 16:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think the image aberration was introduced by the aircraft window. Notice how the image quality varies over the field of view. A focus error or camera motion would cause more or less uniform degradation of the image quality. Depth of field should not be a factor at 20 mm focal length and f/2.8 for this subject, either. Some of the reviewers may not fully appreciate the challenge of aerial photography in the Arctic. It is probably very difficult to take pictures in that cold environment through an open window or door. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess most (if not all) reviewers appreciate difficult circumstances to take some pictures. But in the end... it is the result that counts... Lycaon 21:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"But in the end... it is the result that counts..." Could not say any better.--Mbz1 23:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
It's interesting that this is brought up alone with the NASA references below. We've rejected at least one NASA photo that had smudges (presumably) from dirty glass on the spaceship. Space is an even more difficult shooting environment than in the helicopter, but even in that case it still was not mitigating enough. -- Ram-Man 19:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Unclear. --Derbeth talk 09:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad it is "unclear" for you.If it was "clear" for you, then it would have been something wrong with the picture--Mbz1 17:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
    • The only "dramatic" thing in this "image" is ignorance of people who think it would ever be put on the main page of Commons. The photo has so many technical flaws that it's a disrespect for people voting here to present them such work. Being able to fly in a helicopter over icebergs unfortunately does not mean that you are mature enough to discuss civilly and react to criticism like a man not like a crying child. --Derbeth talk 20:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, mine. We all were just having a good time before you came about and spoiled all the fun, Derbeth. If you go down to that very page, you could see that I nominated all 3 of my prior FP to be delisted: 1, 2 and 3 which, I hope, would make it clear even for you how much I really care about my pictures to "be put on the main page of Commons" . And now I'm ready to learn your verdict ,if that "defected" picture could stay at Wikipedia at all or, if you believe, it should be deleted all together. I also must admit that one of these "defected" pictures of the same icebergs was published at EPOD image. I strongly believe that you, Derbeth should write to the EPOD editor and request him to remove that "deffected" picture. The EPOD editor works for NASA . His e-mail address is :"jfoster @ glacier . gsfc. nasa. gov." I do hope that his e-mail address makes it clear even for you that he is a specialist in glaciology (Glaciology is the science about glaciers and icebergs). I'm sure he will be very interested to learn your clear opinion about him publishing such an "unclear" picture at NASA site. I do hope it is clear even for you that, if you are to use his e-mail address you should delete the spaces and a period. I'm afraid I would never be able to "react to criticism like a man"(the thing is I am a woman). In a meantime you are doing a great job by the moving "images from other Wikipedias to Commons and categorize images." It will be nice, if you could help me to categorize few of mine "defected" ones too, just before you request them to be deleted. I did visit your gallery,Derbeth. Tell you what I think Wikipedia would have lost a lot without you pictures. I liked them. I'm so glad I lost my time to see them. --Mbz1 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  • "Mummy, mummy, those evil people don't like my photos. I'm going to another sandbox!" Do you have any personal problems? When I'm talking about images, you are talking about me (in a way which obviously is a personal attack), my photos, NASA and glaciology, which are all things completely irrelevant in judging whether the photos above are worth being shown on the main page of Commons as extraordinary works. Your photos may contain something that is interesting for a scientist (iceberg of unusual shape or something like that), but still be full of technical flaws. Photo no 4 is so much overexposed that it should never ever appear in this vote.
You have to understand, that noone cares, how have you taken this photo: with a tripod or not, from a helicopter or from a ship, with an assistance of US president or NASA director, in Antarctica, Arctica, other on the Moon. Whether you have broken your leg trying to make it, paid million of dollars to get to this place. The only important thing is whether the photo is high quality or not. Is the photo unsharp because you have taken it from a helicopter? Sorry, we don't care about it - the poto is unsharp, so bye, bye. I have shown you Image:Fryxellsee Opt.jpg as an example of photo depicting ice and snow preserving natural colours, sharpness and all details. Your photo is light years away from this photo in terms of quality. I see you don't understand the simpliest things - there's not sense for me to continue this discussion. If you think that people will admire your photos only because you are perhaps a Ph.D. and have the possibility to visit Arctica - you are wrong. You are not the first person on Wikimedia projects who thinks they are always right only because they work on a university or are older than others. Such pathological cases appear regularly. --Derbeth talk 09:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my nomination at the request (via email) of the creator. I would add that I'm disappointed at the level to which this discourse has dropped. Incivility, ad hominem attacks and insults violate Commons policies and guidelines. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: Nomination withdrawn ==> Not featured. --MichaelMaggs 22:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: Nomination withdrawn ==> Not featured. --MichaelMaggs 22:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Icebergs_cape_york_1.JPG&oldid=164706451"