Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crocodylus acutus feeding.jpg

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

Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2009 at 14:05:55
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Comment Dear Lycaon, Wow! That was a fast oppose! There is just no satisfying your ever changing criteria, quicker than quicksand. A competent photographer and critic would have a totally different interpretation of the data that you just happened to mention. Technically speaking, a choice of ISO 1600, shutter speed of 125 and capturing a moving event in its natural environment (not a zoo, like some) with the level of detail is quite a feat. Granted, not the prettiest of subjects, but crocs are crocs. Some people around here, including you I believe, call that “mitigatng circumstances”. But your oppose is ok with me, cannot expect anything more. Happy New Year! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tomas, please try not to attack whenever Lycaon makes a critical judgement that you disagree with. Your implication that Lycaon is not a competent critic goes too far and is in my view a very unnecessary personal attack. Your choice of ISO 1600, shutter speed 125 to get enough light is a valid option, but has the disadvantages (noise/motion blur) that Lycaon mentions. Those disadvantages must have been forseeable to you when you made your choice of camera settings, and I see no reason for you to become aggressive when those same obvious issues are mentioned by a reviewer to justify an oppose vote. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael, It really amazes me the "selective identification of implication" attributed to my comments, and the blindness granted to the implications of comments of others. But come on Michael, you know that this is not about just about disagreeing over an oppose vote. There is much more depth to that. On another hand, I have a proven track record on the real world of photography (I say this aware that it may be interpreted as tooting my own horm, but I don't care). And as a person with such experience, my opinion is (I've said it many times) that the selection process is fundamentally flawed (and it is a shame) and one of the consequences is that it runs talented people out of here, to the detriment of a larger good, which is the pursuit of knowledge, etc., etc. So this community can keep on tooting their own horn and believe that this is the greatest photography on earth (reserved to a few participants) or take a hard nosed self critical look and take steps to improve. Believe me, any serious photographer would laugh at the process and be dissapointed by many rejections of good, solid work. I really wish this could become a real and serious forum that attracts talent and work to share for the greater good. In Mexico we have a saying that says: "There is no worse blindness than that of the person who does not want to see." --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Stunning picture which I would probably ask for printing if I had the money for it. Thumbnails of photographs are not really useful, people usually look at the high-res version to vote. :) →Diti the penguin — 17:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment That's not very realistic, isn't it? An FP on the Main page is hardly larger than a thumb. That's our business card. But which such a gloomy gray picture... ??? Lycaon (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Question Do you review the images here simply for their appearance as an one-day Featured Picture, or for the quality of the image for other uses, including printing? (Note: This is not an attack, just a real question, since I review images mostly because I feel they suit to this particular use). →Diti the penguin — 23:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Dear Diti... you hit the medular point... There is, in my opinion, no real set of criteria of what a FP should be. Much like travelling without a map. However, as such, choose your own road. I would like for this place to choose FPs based on 1) Encyclopedic value 2) Aesthetic qualities 3) Technical merit. 4) Photograhic skill. But these criteria are no match for the Wow-O-Meter, that elusive measuring instrument guarded in the darkest corners of the subjective world of the FPC priests. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commons has diiferent criteria and I feel your plea for enyclopedic content over aesthetic and technical merit will probably be appreciated at the rnglish wikipedia FPC. Muhammad 11:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muhammad, I think that the core objective and therefore the first criteria should be encyclopedic value, and from that platform other values, such as aesthetic, cultural, artistic value can be approached. However, here, the aproach is a hocus pocus approach, sometimes refering to the pixel values, sharpness, noise, etc., etc., variables that have absolutely nothing to do with the encyclopedic value of images, or even the quality of them. Encyclopedic value, context, history, relevance is all thrown into the waste basket in order to make room for the Wow-O-Meter and historically-recent technological developments in digital imagery that negate the accumulated value of just about anything done prior to the year 2000. Commons is a repository for all Wikis, and all wikis are encyclopedic, so why should Commons be out of tune? You make the shoes to fit your feet, not grow your feet so as to fit the shoes. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Can't see the reptile, because colour of the water is too similar to that of the reptile. —kallerna™ 20:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment This has absolutely nothing to do with camouflage. Water is colourless. This is just a case of poor lighting. Or do you really think that this crocodile has this colour so that photographers from the pool side won't notice him?? Come on people, be serious. Camouflage is a biological characteristic which increases the rate of survival of an organism by blending in its environment, whether as a predator or as a prey. It is not a feature that evolved for wowing FP assessors. Claiming EV for camouflage is close to ridiculous. Lycaon (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Dear Lycaon, of course water is colorless, in its pure form... hardly the conditions you find in the wild. Problem here is the particles suspended in the swamp water, or as in the case of some zoo photographers (you should know), in the pool, they are not transparent. Lighting is natural, and it plays on the water surface, and the way it does helps hide the crocs, for the texture of their skin blends in with the waves, etc. In anycase, the color and texture of the skin blends in with other elements of the environment anyhow, plants, reflexions, mud, etc., etc. Poor lighting? Well, of course it is not the light one gets in a cozy lab, out here we call it natural lighting. --189.187.132.1 19:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second  Comment As the result of the above post, which I inadventently failed to sign logged in, but for which I take full responsibility, Lycaon blocked my IP address thus preventing me from participating and censoring my comments, an act that I consider unfair and an abuse of administrator power. I am accused of implying certain traits about some people, yet nothing is said about the implications that can be derived from Lycaon's words. If Lycaon can critize my photograhic work and my opinions, why can't I do the same with his opinions? Criticism is welcome, both ways. I know my demeaor may turn people off about me and my work, that is ok, that is their prerrogative, but this is not about me or my work. This is about encyclopedia, about art, about knowledge. To stiffle opinion is a coward act of censure. Period. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Dear Alvesgaspar, I sig my name to my posts and do not hide neither intent nor opinion, and for that I get blocked and censured. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It is not important who's behind, what's important is: will it help admin to realize they cannot act on Commons like they would own it, they cannot be treated differently as other users, I'm not sure it is not the goal on Wiki's... --67.159.50.130 21:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, could we be more mellow please? Water is colorless, of course, but these creatures live in shallow slow-moving waters. They are very well camouflaged in silt and mud. Durova (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose If this image should demonstrate camouflage I think it would be better without the fish. The fish was hardly caught due to the color of the croc. But as a plain croc image it feels too dark, noisy, unsharp and hard to see the main subject. (though I like the dynamics with the catch). /Daniel78 (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 CommentSo an unclear understanding about how a picture was done is grounds for opposing??? I tell you a secret... I just point and push a little button until it does "click". As to the above reasons, which one? There are soooo many! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Ö 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Crocodylus_acutus_feeding.jpg&oldid=17736695"