Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Haltern am See, Naturpark Hohe Mark, Hohemarkenbusch, Baumstamm -- 2024 -- 4411 (kreativ 2).jpg

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

File:Haltern am See, Naturpark Hohe Mark, Hohemarkenbusch, Baumstamm -- 2024 -- 4411 (kreativ 2).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2024 at 17:43:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Photo art based on a photo of a tree trunk in the Hohe Mark Nature Park in the district of Holtwick, Haltern am See, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
 Info In short: photographic art as described. In long: Explaining photographic art is certainly not easy, but I can say something about how it came about. The motif was a tree trunk with a varied structure - with different shades of green and brown. This tree trunk was photographed using the "Intentional camera movement" technique, so that the corresponding movement effect was created. The direction of movement of the camera was parallel to the tree trunk. The exposure time was chosen so that the structure of the trunk was still preserved. (It was only an exposure time of 0.6 seconds, so not too little and not too much). In post-processing, the image was edited so that the contrasts were emphasized and at the same time the colors were made a little more saturated. The resulting image was the basis for the image shown here. In the final step, the image was duplicated (in 2 layers) and one layer was mirrored in order to achieve the symmetry effect. Both layers were then blended together so that the dark tones were dominant. --XRay 💬 04:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation;  Support. Wolverine XI 20:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find your statement remarkable and honest. It is understandable. I have had these difficulties myself and still have them today. For me, it is a further development of photographic creativity. I first had to make friends with ICM, but I already enjoy the pictures that are created with it. I also have a preference for symmetries. I can only recommend trying out lots of things and being creative with photography. --XRay 💬 20:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How should I rate "boring"? You have no access to photographic art? You don't see any content? When do you see meaningful content? I find your assessment quite confusing. --XRay 💬 16:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not special, or interesting, or worth a FP. If asking about that adjective it's about how interesting and engaging such as thought-provocative and inspiring something is. Note "strange" is not meant as a reason for opposition, it's just a mention that it's basically unknown or meaningless what's being looked at. Meaningful is when you for example can say this artwork is about this or that such as communicating some emotion or idea etc. My rationale is similar to the one just above mine. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Artwork is about this or that"? Maybe you just don't have the mental access to it? Neither photographic art nor a painting or sculpture always has to be figurative. BTW: I see a forest spirit in the picture, even if this is my imagination. --XRay 💬 06:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Agreeing with the above opposes. Also my reasoning is that Commons' scope is education not entertainment. On that basis, evaluating the image as an illustration of a photo technique I find it is not the best of its type - I can't easily understand the camera movement. Having said that, it is a beautiful piece of art and I wouldn't mind hanging it on my wall.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps the argument should not ignore the fact that "educational" is to be understood in a broad sense and that Wikimedia Commons is a media archive for all Wikimedia Foundation projects. In this respect, I am of the opinion that the image fits very well into the scope. --XRay 💬 07:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • + 1. Thank you. – Aristeas (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commander Keane, I think you might consider that Commons has such a broad scope that even images that at first glance may not look "educational" can indeed be used as illustrations for more articles and other WikiProjects rather than just the first one that comes to your mind. Example: Another ICM photo that is used to illustrate an article. Here at FPC we only worry about if the image is really good, and then we let editors decide where they want to use them. --Cart (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @W.carter and XRay: I am happy to discuss further but I am currently unmoved by your arguments. Perhaps on the talk page of this nomination so as not to distract. Just ping me. Commander Keane (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Commander Keane, I think it's ok to say the few words I have in reply here (talk pages are very rarely used here on FPC, discussions about images are held on the nom page as to not divide discussions needlessly). I have no problem with you not thinking this photo is not one of the best on Commons, that's perfectly ok. But I think we should not discard such images as "useless", just because we might not see the context in which they might be used. I have now found use of this image in two articles. --Cart (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @W.carter: Ok I will reply here. In w:The Snow (poem) the photographer (you) added a random image to the article to decorate it, without even the caption "artist impression" - misleading to readers and I would be surprised if the image stays in the long term. The same applies to w:Rhombus and I am not sure how lax Wiktionary's policies are for image placement but wiktionary:light at the end of the tunnel is a real stretch. Saying an image has potential for Wikimedia usage is a slippery slope, see this deletion request. You can argue that if an image scrapes into the Scope, and people think it is pretty then we feature. This has ramifications though, for example now someone wanting to learn about a rhombus will get this "postmegasurrealism" image as a top suggestion. Commander Keane (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commander Keane, thank you. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. You are taking the hardliner approach that only exact images should be used in articles. There are many like you here, but I am of the opinion that articles that deal with abstract subjects can also benefit from having images, and often more abstract images are better suited for this purpose. Artists are often called on to illustrate texts about non-tangible subjects, although you call such practice "to decorate" an article. Articles on Wikis etc. are not scientific papers, even though many editors do their best to turn many of them into such, but are supposed to bring knowledge to as many people as possible. And often, an image can help to make an article more accessible and distinguishable from other articles. You can view each article the same way you view a book. A hundred years ago, a book on an abstract subject looked like this, while this is what a similar book looks like today. It's small thing, having an image to associate with a text/book/paper/article, but it helps. --Cart (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: Thank you for your response. Using this image to potentially illustrate the cover of a WikiBook is an interesting use case that I did not consider. I will ponder my position further personally. Incidentally, did you create The Snow (poem) image for that article specifically, or was it just a happy coincidence? Commander Keane (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commander Keane, no, the image was created outside the WikiProject and only uploaded and nominated here when the new gallery for creative photography was added. I do a lot of "outside the box" images, and they have met with mixed receptions here. I was actually totally flabbergasted by how well that photo was received. I often browse FPC, WLM, WLE, etc. looking for good images to pair with articles on the projects. Mostly images by others, but sometimes mine. I think that when the community has put so much work in weeding out good images, it would be a shame not to put them to use somewhere. I also update articles with what good images I can find. I had come across the poem by accident some months before my photo was promoted, and since people seemed to like the picture and it was in tone with the poem, I thought it might be ok to pair the two. My edits may be bold, but they are free to revert (as I sometimes say in the edit summary) and I do abide by such decisions, and never edit-war to keep the images I suggest. So far, more have been kept than reverted. If I create an image specially for an article, it is usually for articles that are very hard to get images for (1, 2). --Cart (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry if this is ignorant to the effort you spent on this, but my impression is that this can be made easily and it's not very impressive to me. I have made stuff like this before when messing with blending layers Henrysz (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether it is easy to create or not is actually irrelevant. An FP does not always have to be complicated to create. In any case, experience plays a role in the effort involved, which is also impossible to estimate. In any case, the focus here was on the idea and the photos were taken on the basis of this idea. Of course, the image is ultimately only created in post-processing. --XRay 💬 07:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't understand where something outstanding is. And while "Featured picture" shouldn't be essentially a photograph, these abstractions does not reaaly fall into any of criteria for FP. What do you look at when you're measuring its quality? What is wow here or at least what was the intention for the creation of a picture and is it clear for a viewer? And what is the overall meaning and educational value in these pictures? I don't like to sound as an old professor but bring it back when you'll find a meaning for it. Красный wanna talk? 09:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have one small request: please don't always mention this so-called “educational value”. The Scope of the project is clearly defined further and is not limited to this. I have already explained this in another comment above. Quite apart from that, the views on what is “educational” are completely different. It is not a clearly tangible argument, but rather a matter of interpretation. The fact that I can't think of a use case doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thank you! --XRay 💬 09:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, a cite from the scope: The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository … that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. --XRay 💬 09:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I like the image. But as this here is a process of promoting outstanding photographic works, and the rules are stating that FP candidates should at least fulfil the requirements of good images as well as QI should and be outstanding in a way, I must say that this is not a good image showing anything existing in the real world in an exceptional good way. It might be art. But this is not an art contest. I could support this, if it was a reproduction of a piece of art. but it's not. --August (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Haltern_am_See,_Naturpark_Hohe_Mark,_Hohemarkenbusch,_Baumstamm_--_2024_--_4411_(kreativ_2).jpg&oldid=900502667"