Info 360° view from (almost) the summit of the Lascar volcano, the most active volcano of the northern Chilean Andes. This was taken at an altitude of 5500m. It's a downscaled version made from 11 photos.
Comment Special note for Beyond Silence: don't even think of complaining about sharpness or detail.
Comment I do not approve of such comments. Every registered user is entitled to have an opinion. Above all, be polite. You may disagree on opinion of a reviewr, in which case you can start arguing why you do not agree or just ignore it. In the end anomalous opinions are normally averaged out by the opinions of several users. -- Slaunger20:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was on a (somewhat) humoristic stance, making reference to the fact that he has repeatedly complained about sharpness or detail on some of my shots that appear perfectly fine, and never bother to add any precision to his initial comment. --Nattfodd21:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you suspect that a particular reviewer systematically is opposing your nominations and ignoring questions, I suggest that you first address this on the particular users talk page and try to settle things there. -- Slaunger06:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really, Slaunger, you go try having a civilized interaction with beyond silence and reading their comments and see how much hair you pull out :) --Pumpmeup07:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do think constructive criticism about observed behaviors are better to discuss on the particular users talk page, than stating sarcastic comments about a user while nominating an FP, see here for an example. -- Slaunger23:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the crop could have been better. But don't you think it has mitigating qualities that more than compensate for it? --Nattfodd07:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I pondered for a long time whether to upload this photo or not. Turns out I shouldn't have. I'm sick and tired of seeing great photos (not only mine) being dragged in the mud because the background looks a bit unsharp at 300%. I get the impression that (almost) no one really cares about the photo, only about technical nitpicking. Never does the value of the image, the difficulty involved in taking it or its beauty enter as factors in your decisions to oppose. This is the last image I nominate for FP (and probably contribute to commons, for that matter). Have fun promoting the 25678th image of a bee on a flower. --Nattfodd11:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. This is exactly what I've been thinking about too. Usually, someone submits a picture, one of the insiders finds some nitpicking reason to dislike it, and the rest follow. And like you said, nothing trumps the tech details (remember people disliking this war picture because the private who snapped the shot hadn't used a tripod? Sure, it's an amazingly powerful photo taken over 60 years ago during a war, but it just isn't sharp enough. That's plain ridiculous.) What's worse, only the people OUTSIDE the clique are subject to the nitpicking - the insiders receive a much lower level of scrutiny. I'll bet Commons loses a lot of photographic talent to the politics of FP. Nominations/authorship should be anonymous, and votes unseen until the result is decided, to stop this group voting; but that seems impossible, and sometimes people's comments are helpful in evaluating a pic (like pointing out noise or ghosting that I hadn't noticed or something like that). So it does seem very discouraging. I don't blame you for withdrawing; it's hard to put your own work out there and watch it get stomped by people who seem to take pleasure in it. But you should stick around to fight back. LOLed on the bee comment BTW. --JaGa18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. As for fighting back, I wouldn't really know how to do it except than keeping uploading and getting rejected over stupid reasons (and the mere thought of Beyond silence leaving a critic on another photo of mine is making me want to kill kittens...). Honestly, since it's 'only' FP on wikipedia, I just don't see it as worth all the frustration it brings me. On the other hand, if you find some other way to lobby for e.g. anonymous voting (which seems to be a great idea), I'd be glad to help. --Nattfodd20:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I much much agree with Jaga (and Nattfodd). I remember I felt very dissapointed that this pic of mine got declined for perspective reasons when it was the desired effect... and was thinking that it only has to be an insect on flower to succeed. I was also wondering if the earliest votes didn't have an influence on the following ones. But I also agree with Michael Maggs, I have the feeling the process is good, generaly, the pictures featured are very good. Probably my dissapointment was because I took me lot of work and time to produce the pano. As I seen somewhere (Ram-Man's page ?), this process shouldn't be taken too seriously, there's a lot of subjectivity involved, there isn't any competition or whatever and nothing to win but pride, recognition by other people (at least to me), hearing other opinions, and learning (I learnt a lot from Diliff's panos). Benh17:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a bit sad that you do not want to contribute more to commons, because this FP section has nothing to do whether an image is valuable or not. Even if I never get a picture promoted I will not see that as a reason to stop contributing to commons. It's important to remember that a rejected FP is not a rejected commons image in any way. /Daniel7821:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take this too personally. Loads of us have had what we believe to be unreasonable objections to our FP candidates, but in the end the results seems to work out fairly well. What bothers one person a lot (the upper crop in this case was the very first thing that drew my eye, and to me significantly affects the image's beauty) bothers others not at all. There are already several support votes and, who knows, this picture may well succeed. Please don't stop nominating or, worse, contributing. Your images are always of very high quality and are of great usefulness to Commons. Nobody wins every time, though. (ps I think we may recently have raised the bar for bees). --MichaelMaggs16:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this time we don't riding on minor tech. problems! I think if your composition is more concentrate on the vulcan it can be really great. --Beyond silence16:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who's citing any technical problems in your picture? It's an aesthetic issue this time. I disagree with the people here all the time, but this is to be expected since art is subjective. You're picture is of what looks to be a volcano summit, people expect to see one of two things, either the view from the summit or a good shot into the volcano. This picture is at least 50% rocks on the ground. Also "the 25678th image of a bee on a flower" (actually a fly) is currently doing worse than your picture and it's from our best macro photographer. Calibas18:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a great picture! Unless, of course, all the chairborne commandos around here have a better one... I've been in and out of this forum for a few months and sadly, I believe it has been hijacked by know nothing nitpicks, who of course, pride themselves in believing to be photography critics. A camera does not make a photographer nor language a critic. Nattfodd is a generous photograher that brings into this forum or effort great images from afar, from places most of us will only know from his pictures, and to knock them down with silly pseudo teckie arguments does a disservice to the Wikipeda effort, and to boot, only exhibits ignorance of the worst kind, contrary to the spirit of the Encyclopedia, in its true extension of the word. By knocking this photograh of Nattfodd and at the same time promote, for example the Neon picture to FP what shows is the vastness of stupidity. Sorry to put it that way... and if the shoe fits, wear it.--Tomascastelazo18:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent sharpness (even in the mountains in the background) - I get vertigo on behalf of that guy. --JaGa18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The crop is very tight indeed, but for a 360° this doesn't bother me really. Breath-taking view and excellent sharpness. -- MJJR19:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support That crop is a bit of an eyesore - it is immediately noticed, but I find it is overcompensated by the otherwise exceptional quality of the photo taken at an unusual place at very high altitude. -- Slaunger20:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We're all here to try an improve Wikipedia (I hope), let's try to treat each other with respect. Disagreement is healthy, but resorting to personal insults is rather immature. We're here to judge the images, not the other users. If you have a problem with another user, tell them on their talk page. If you have a problem with the FP requirements, there's a talk page for that too. Calibas22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Who is insulting who? Aren't the conditions, whatever they may be, that make Nattfodd and his talent leave this encyclopedic effort the real insult? --Tomascastelazo22:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To quote you, "I believe it has been hijacked by know nothing nitpicks, who of course, pride themselves in believing to be photography critics" and "By knocking this photograh of Nattfodd and at the same time promote, for example the Neon picture to FP what shows is the vastness of stupidity". Know nothing nitpicks isn't an insult? If you or the other editors here have a problem with the way FPs are chosen there's a forum where we discuss these things, Commons talk:Featured picture candidates. Starting a flame war because individuals have different opinions is nothing but detrimental to the people here and Wikipedia as a whole. Calibas03:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically outstanding, sharpness, light and stitching seem flawless but the crop is such an essential element of the effect on the viewer that the missing hilltop spoils the otherwise wonderful image. Wwcsig23:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without the right part.
Comment. Maybe can you try to cut the right part of the picture to make the crop disappear. Whatever the length may be, it will remain a great picture, won't it? Thierry Caro02:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something like the one I've uploaded, or even shorter.
Support the original image as presented - rhs - bulk presence, rhc volcanic gassed entryway surmounted by clouds, lhc presence and scale feature, lhs distance feature showing true scale of the photo and the accomplishment (high-altitude blue with cloud haze under). IFFF this sequence is contemporaneous, a masterful composite work, if separate timed shots, a very impressive montage. Either way a rich and worthy image. Franamax13:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support First you gotta get there. The contrastyness is what it looks like, isn't it? I appreciate seeing the panorama without having to go there myself. It was stitched together by someone who had a lot of respect for the situation as well, I think. I found one place where the stitching is not so good, I would volunteer to fix this if none of the other more experienced stitchers are available. I think the bickering about the crop is kind of moot, too bad there is no way to vote on the voters. -- carol05:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done what I can to over-document that little error here.-- carol 07:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Also, it is a clone error (I think) and not a stitch error. I think I fixed my error as much as I can while sitting here on this chair critisizing the system. -- carol11:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support seriously, anyone who raises points as valid as those under the 3rd comment point and still produces great pictures is a legend --Pumpmeup07:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel a bit sad to oppose because I believe this is a very good shot. But why is the horizon straight on the left part, and curved on the right part ? Could it be restitched ? Also, crop is really tight but I understand that Alexandre may have not left enough margins on the source pictures when taking them (which is often a problem to me). Great picture otherwise... Benh17:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So am I. I think it is best if cropped such that the rock/sky boundary just meets in the upper right corner of the image, see this for example (where it is done (a little careless on close inspection) in the upper left corner). -- Slaunger06:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe, if Natt can do the same crop from the original pictures, he can get more on the bottom (to see more of the smoking hole) and correct the horizon (it's curved) ? Sanchezn16:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Loses the view over Argentina, Laguna Leija and the bits of the Atacama desert. Plus less interesting if it's not 360°. --Nattfodd17:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO if one gets promoted, it should be this one. The guy's presence has a sense here (on the above picture, I find he spoils the composition) and helps improving the composition. Also, the -what I believe to be a- stitching flaw, inconsistency of the horizon, can't be seen here. -- Benh17:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info 360° view from (almost) the summit of the Lascar volcano, the most active volcano of the northern Chilean Andes. This was taken at an altitude of 5500m. It's a downscaled version made from 11 photos.
Comment Special note for Beyond Silence: don't even think of complaining about sharpness or detail.
Support --Nattfodd 22:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Unfortunate crop. Lycaon 06:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Question Who is insulting who? Aren't the conditions, whatever they may be, that make Nattfodd and his talent leave this encyclopedic effort the real insult? --Tomascastelazo 22:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
