Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anemone patens in Zhytomyr Oblast 2017-04.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2022 at 09:14:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Ranunculaceae
Info created & uploaded by 84Human84 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Support
Comment Great idea, but it doesn't quite come off, artistically or technically. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)}
- Possibly fake, like 1, 2, 3... but I can't say how far in this case -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Oppose There should be a place for digital creations, but only if they are described as such. If the photographer can state this is genuine, I will remove my oppose. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose If such is the case, that this has gone through serious alterations or staging, it may not be fair to have it "competing in the league" with genuine photographs. I like this aesthetically, but digital art may be a topic worth discussing about, as I am one myself too, even if doing just paintings rather than "photos". I don't know what has happened, but may need a word from the creator to be clear. Genuine description needed, as I would also oppose a picture of wildlife taken in a zoo, if it isn't stated. --Ximonic (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support--Princess Rosalina 💄 452495 12:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support--Ermell (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - I would love to hear from 84Human84 about this (and other) images. Many of the others are obviously closer to "digital art" than "pure photography", which makes me more suspicious than I already was of this shot. I don't mean "digital art" negatively, necessarily, but the descriptions should be clear when scenes are staged or photos are composited/heavily edited. The images are impressive, either way -- I don't think staging or heavy editing should be disqualifying as long as it's in the description. Sometimes an image might be too contrived to serve much "educational use" but IMO there is a place for some such art among FPs on Commons. — Rhododendrites talk | 12:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support Very impressive, beautiful, backlit and isolated subject. - Benh (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I cannot believe this is a the result of one shot, and as there is no information about that in the description, I consider it a fake. The area around the sun is full of water drops, either in the air or over a surface or even the lens. That's not the case in the bottom are, that's awkward. Poco a poco (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Please specify the manipulation or montage in the description page -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Neutral pending resolution of the issues raised. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Question Reading the views above, wouldn't it be right @Tomer T: to withdraw this nomination? Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination concern for undocumented manipulation. Tomer T (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
