Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 02 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Legs_of_a_dad_and_two_kids.jpg[edit]

  • So Palauenc05 you are saying that it's ok to photograph the top of people and cut them just above the waist, but we can not photograph the bottom of them? BTW, I did a series of 'feet photos' after seeing this, that is where I got the idea: Link to photo (I have to put the link on another page here since urls disrupts the template here). I mean, if the White House photographer can get away with it, why not. --W.carter 22:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest, I also ask myself, what could be a better composition for an image of six legs. Actually, I'm not able to answer that question. I always try to keep in mind that we are working on an encyclopedia. Hence, a good composition of a useless motif is hard to define. --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Wikipedia. You are not working on an encyclopedia here. I find this kind of talk, especially when backed up by negative votes, depressing. Photography is a creative art, not purely documentary. -- Ikan Kekek 00:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick question: when you say "this is not WP", you mean QIC, right? Not Commons in general? I actually quite like having images like this one on Commons as an image database - but if you mean QIC then yes, it's the quality that's being judged.--Peulle 01:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean Commons as a whole. Commons is an image database, but it is by no means for the exclusive use of Wikipedia, and as a side point, we have absolutely no way of knowing in the future what photos might be used on Wikipedia. I know of a couple of cases of images that were said to be non-encyclopedic being used on Wikipedia later, and I'm sure longtimers know of many other cases. -- Ikan Kekek 05:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I second what Ikan says about us not knowing how this image database will be used. There might even be another project somewhere in the future that also needs photos and someone may get the bright idea of linking it to this database. I like the idea of free information, which is why I use the cc-zero license, so photos such as this can already be used in so many other places than just Wikipedia. But I also totally respect the opinion of those discussing the technical quality of the photo for the sake of QIC, that is a separate issue. I know that there is a slight motion blur on two of the shoes (I couldn't exactly yell "Freeze!" before I shot it), but I think it is so little that it's good enough for QI. --W.carter 07:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
W.carter, I feel uncomfortable if only the technical quality should be a criterion of a QI, while the motif does not play any role at all. That means in consequence that commons in general and QI in particular is more or less art for art's sake. I respect your effort, but I doubt that a photo of some legs will ever be of any use. However, I'm ready to withdraw my oppose vote, if you do not accept my objection. --Palauenc05 08:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Palauenc05, of course I accept your objection, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. Even if we discuss things, you are always free to vote any way you want. I agree that composition is also a big part of a QI, I only wanted to discuss what kind of compositions we should be allowed to make here. I still think that the photo is expressive in showing a situation without revealing the identity of those involved, but since opinions are so divided about this kind of photography, I will withdraw this nom rather than clog up this section with discussions that might be better suited for another forum. --cart-Talk 08:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed above. --Palauenc05 09:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I scratched my oppose vote without realizing that you had withdrawn the image in the meantime. --Palauenc05 09:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm still withdrawing it to show that I only meant to discuss. --W.carter 10:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 10:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]