Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Пожар Троице-Измайловского собора, СПб, 24.08.2006 - Крест.jpg

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

File:Пожар Троице-Измайловского собора, СПб, 24.08.2006 - Крест.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2011 at 20:20:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fire of Trinity-Izmailovsky Cathedral, Saint-Petersbourg, on August 24, 2006.
  •  Comment let stop these comments about noise (ie. great images by magnum photographers are full of noise) and lets see the EV value and the general composition.. I believe that this image [1] from that fire is more descriptive, more EV and better that this one... it is from the same photographer.. this image is also nice [2] Ggia (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both pictures linked by Ggia are indeed way more impressive/descriptive. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could not agree more with you about value vs. noise, but some influent people here seem to think otherwise (see current discussion about so-called "careless reviews"). So what do you suggest? Should I nominate these as alternatives? Thanks for your comments, Yann (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suggest to nominate this version: [3] / has more EV value than this one. Ggia (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think the image you propose has the slightest chance to be promoted. Personally, I find that it is of inferior quality (blown out sky, cables, statue in the foreground, etc.). Anyway, the debates and votes in FPC are getting less and less constructive, and more and more aggressive, hence my withdrawal. Yann (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please enlighten me if I'm wrong but the only user addressing the subject "noise" in that discussion was Ggia. May I ask how the conclusion was reached that some influent people here think otherwise (and otherwise how, by the way) ? Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the image is so bad (i.e. due to noise) use the FPX template. Ggia (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think that these kind of gratuitous comments contribute to the quality of the revieweing process or to the harmony among reviewers. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • In this dialog I just proposed that there is another alternative version of this event, with high EV that beside the noise it is featurable. I think that my comment contribute to the quality and the reviewing process and harmony. I don't vote neither with support or oppose and I am waiting for the nominatior to change mind and nominate the other version which I indicated. I just mentioned, if the image is so low quality due to noise.. there is always the FPX template, for these cases. Ggia (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- A nice photo but not a great photo. Aesthetics first: like sunsets most fire shots at night are beautiful but few are exceptional. That is the case here, where the poor image quality (excessive noise) is not mitigated by extraordinary beauty and composition (in this case, I don't like the tigh framing with cropped flames). Value second: being a close-up is detrimetal to enc value, as the subject is not easily recognized. Also, a day shot wouldn't be as spectacular but would show more details of the event. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Chromatic noise in the sky and badly cropped flame. →AzaToth 16:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Пожар_Троице-Измайловского_собора,_СПб,_24.08.2006_-_Крест.jpg&oldid=62680081"